Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Congressional Black Caucus chair blasts proposed superdelegate changes [View all]
I support the CBC on this https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/politics/congressman-blasts-superdelegate-changes-democrats/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-08-14T13%3A16%3A05
The chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus blasted proposed changes to Democratic "superdelegate" rules that would limit their ability to vote on the first ballot for the party's presidential nominees.
In a letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez dated Monday, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond wrote on behalf of "many" of his colleagues in the caucus to urge him to withdraw support of the changes to be voted on at the party's meeting at the end of the month.
"There should be enough room in the process to include the perspective of local party activists and officials, and Members of Congress. One group should not be harmed at the expense of the other," Richmond wrote. "Passage of the reforms in their current form would disenfranchise elected officials for no substantive reason and would create unnecessary competition between those elected and their constituents."
The proposed plan -- known as the "third way plus" option -- does not allow superdelegates to vote at the convention for the presidential nominee on the first ballot unless a candidate has been certified to have earned a majority of the entire convention through pledged delegates only. This ensures superdelegates could not change the outcome of the nomination process on the first ballot, which detractors of the plan point out has never happened since they were created in the 1980s.
In a letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez dated Monday, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond wrote on behalf of "many" of his colleagues in the caucus to urge him to withdraw support of the changes to be voted on at the party's meeting at the end of the month.
"There should be enough room in the process to include the perspective of local party activists and officials, and Members of Congress. One group should not be harmed at the expense of the other," Richmond wrote. "Passage of the reforms in their current form would disenfranchise elected officials for no substantive reason and would create unnecessary competition between those elected and their constituents."
The proposed plan -- known as the "third way plus" option -- does not allow superdelegates to vote at the convention for the presidential nominee on the first ballot unless a candidate has been certified to have earned a majority of the entire convention through pledged delegates only. This ensures superdelegates could not change the outcome of the nomination process on the first ballot, which detractors of the plan point out has never happened since they were created in the 1980s.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
293 replies, 10972 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (21)
ReplyReply to this post
293 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Congressional Black Caucus chair blasts proposed superdelegate changes [View all]
Gothmog
Aug 2018
OP
The superdelegate concept represents the ultimate in conceit and heavyhandedness.
Sophia4
Aug 2018
#168
So in addition to not voting for our party's nominee, you have not worked on a campaign in
Gothmog
Aug 2018
#196
What we do not need are caucuses, the modern-day version of the old smoke-filled rooms,
pnwmom
Aug 2018
#293
He won. Do you really think that Republicans would not have won the electoral college
Sophia4
Aug 2018
#199
You're a broken record. You don't know any of that. You just keep repeating yourself.
brush
Aug 2018
#204
Wikipedia on the history of superdelegates. They are a more recent idea than you would think.
Sophia4
Aug 2018
#195
Super delegates are not elected. They vote as delegates without being elected by the
Sophia4
Aug 2018
#63
Their purpose is to serve as a failsafe and to put someone over 2382 when a race is close.
Garrett78
Aug 2018
#137
No, no strawman. They are people who vote at the convention on behalf of others.
boston bean
Aug 2018
#157
The Democratic Party should support and defend the idea of one vote, one person
Sophia4
Aug 2018
#53
I and all the other party members who do the leg-work, who make the calls, who talk
Sophia4
Aug 2018
#7
No less lazy than voters who get up early, travel rain or shine, stand in line to vote in primaries
Sophia4
Aug 2018
#10
Hillary won most votes without superdelegates alsoi and you did not vote for the nominee
JI7
Aug 2018
#22
Most articulate post I have seen in a long time. I hope you didin't confuse anyone with the facts.
still_one
Aug 2018
#229
If the superdelegates don't make a difference in the outcome of the election, then
Sophia4
Aug 2018
#59
The Democratic Party can end the custom of superdelegates as well as the caucuses
Sophia4
Aug 2018
#69
The candidate who won the most votes did not need the superdelegates to win the
Sophia4
Aug 2018
#178
You don't know that trump would not have been stopped so stop pretending you do.
brush
Aug 2018
#182
You are the one spreading misinformation leading to "misunderstandings and controversies" yet you
bettyellen
Aug 2018
#202
Weird spell correction. Why do YOU spread the misinformation and then use it as justification?
bettyellen
Aug 2018
#210
So you think that the CBC is wrong. Why do you think that you know more than they do
ehrnst
Aug 2018
#172
This almost sounds like you didn't vote for the Democratic candidate in the 2016 general election.
lapucelle
Aug 2018
#86
I, like all Americans, vote for the candidate that I believe is the best for my country.
Sophia4
Aug 2018
#170
You are accusing Dems of dishonesty and corruption. Wow. Something smells alright.
bettyellen
Aug 2018
#65
Did I read upthread that you did not vote for the Democratic nominee in the 2016 GE?
lapucelle
Aug 2018
#80
Neither of these two members of the CBC had any kind things to say about sanders
Gothmog
Aug 2018
#110
Thanks. I'm in California where we have primaries. Caucuses are unfair to working
Sophia4
Aug 2018
#15
Caucuses should be gone. But they have nothing to do with the popular vote.
LiberalFighter
Aug 2018
#28
Smoke filled rooms were OK when communication was poor, back in the 19th century.
Sophia4
Aug 2018
#66
And as they have never reversed the will of the primary voters, what good has it done?
mythology
Aug 2018
#133
The only way one group could be harmed is if superdelegates decide the nomination
mythology
Aug 2018
#17
Members of the CBC are more important to the party than people pushing this rule change
Gothmog
Aug 2018
#34
Again these are leaders of the party who are more important to the party than sanders supporters
Gothmog
Aug 2018
#39
All of the materials that I have seen is that it is sanders and his followers pushing this
Gothmog
Aug 2018
#236
Funny thing about privilege. People don't like it when others have it but like it when it
jalan48
Aug 2018
#41
I'm not sure how giving disproportionate power to people annointed with it is reasonable to him.
JCanete
Aug 2018
#43
What does that mean in this context? whatever a member of CBC says you are automatically on board?
JCanete
Aug 2018
#67
I'm not comforable with Bee's framing at all. She literally led up to it with talking about Carter
JCanete
Aug 2018
#74
needless to say, you didnt' address any of my points, convincing me that I should reconsider, with
JCanete
Aug 2018
#226
you refuted 0 points I made. I mean, tell yourself whatever you want to tell yourself,
JCanete
Aug 2018
#249
Okay, for whatever reasons you want to have this conversation without actually having a conversation
JCanete
Aug 2018
#252
when an OR candidate loses by a small margin it isn't making a difference, it is "failing"
JCanete
Aug 2018
#259
I, too, stand with the CBC, and not with those who seek to dilute the power of elected minorities...
Tarheel_Dem
Aug 2018
#70
Superdelegates, like caucuses, are undemocratic relics of the past. It is also extremely asinine
tritsofme
Aug 2018
#89
Elected officials also increase the influence of states that elect democrats to office
Gothmog
Aug 2018
#112
Right they should not exist. I support the Democratic party's decision in this.
Tiggeroshii
Aug 2018
#121
You were a bound delegate. Very different from what an unbound superdelegate was.
Tiggeroshii
Aug 2018
#122
You stand correct. However pledged delegates are far more democratic than superdelegates.
Tiggeroshii
Aug 2018
#142
The local party activists and officials, and Members of Congress can all have one vote like the rest
CentralMass
Aug 2018
#131