Good bad indifferent - Dance with the ones who brung ya.

If the superdelegates want a say in the outcome of primaries and conventions, let them do the work of getting voters out, formulating persuasive agendas and selling their point of view.

The superdelegate system is a cop-out that allows lazy politicians to have a say without doing the leg work. I do leg-work in political campaigns. I want the voters to decide the outcome of primaries, conventions, etc., not political hacks.

Link to tweet

Those of us who knock on doors, make calls, stand at tables, etc., our votes should be equal to those of people who are paid to do their roles in the Democratic Party or who are big donors, i.e., superdelegates.

Superdelegates are an insult to volunteers in the Democratic Party.

But she won by a huge margin in my state of California.

I vote for Democrats.

for her. not those who didn't vote for her that you are defending.

those who didn't vote for her don't deserve credit for her huge win.

It made her margin of victory in the entire country plenty to put her in the White House, but because of the electoral college, our votes in California are worthless. Absolutely worthless. We need to end the electoral college. It is an impediment to good government.

Last edited Thu Aug 16, 2018, 01:56 PM - Edit history (1)

She won in California because of those people too and believe it or not, not everybody that turned out hundreds of voters for Hillary necessarily voted for her themselves.

I think we know why.

but it happens to also sometimes be the strategy of minority factions and insurgent candidates who cannot get power by healthy democratic processes of majority vote and so strive to kick the door open to alternative routes to taking power.

A ruthless, unprincipled strategy.

An attempt to subvert a primary was tried not so long ago. A primary candidate asked superdelegates to overset the majority vote. That strategy failed completely when the superdelegates all turned down this request to betray the Democratic electorate and severely, dreadfully damage their party.

More shockingly, though, a minority of Democrats supported this attempted hijacking. I've never read a word of shame, and it should be assumed that a future unscrupulous candidate seeking to win by any means might be able to gain similar support.

An all too likely tactic, if we were to remove all our protections, would be what happened to the Republican Party: The kind of very bad candidate the superdelegates are there to stop gets nominated by lying and appealing to the worst in voters.

Yes, that would be democracy, all right, but democracy that elects a Trump is democracy used as a weapon against itself. We need protection against the kind of ruthless people who will misuse party organizations to gain power if not stopped.

Superdelegates think they are smarter and better to pick candidates than the voters.

No. They are not.

Superdelegates represent arrogance.

I got elected in my state, therefore I am better than the voters and can decide who voters get to pick to elect.

It's sheer arrogance.

I know why we began to have superdelegates. Doesn't change my mind.

I was a McGovern supporter, a Eugene McCarthy supporter. I am a proud liberal. I want fair, honest elections.

The superdelegate policy provides a way for people who think they are smarter than everyone else to rig the nomination process.

And anyone who asks superdelegates to vote for him or her is just playing by the superdelegate rules. Can't blame him or her.

We should not have superdelegates. Period. Makes us look horrible.

Just as the electoral college that elected Trump makes us look horrible.

And both traditions, the electoral college and superdelegates, are ripe for corruption. Just wait and see.

along with those of all the other millions of majority Democratic voters? By misusing a rule?

Oh, Sophia, I so can. That is the very antithesis of the principles of democracy. Completely and permanently unforgiveable.

our Party presidential nominee 2016 or not? So many sat out, why?

I am working with several local candidates and one congressional candidate. These people are not lazy and are working very hard. If you had worked on a campaign in the real world, you would know this. For example Sri Preston Kulkarni has workers calling voters in 13 languages. Sri only speaks six languages. I have been block walking with Sri and I am working on another fundraiser for hims

People running for office work hard and are not lazy. If you had actually worked on a campaign in the real world, you would know this.

I have worked on many campaigns.

The concept of a superdelegate is an insult to democratic procedures. We should not have them in the Democratic Party.

No Republican dared to speak against Trump. If the Republican Party had superdelegates, Trump would still have been the candidate because there would not have been enough votes to defeat his candidacy.

The superdelegates give a false sense of security to traditionalists in the Democratic Party.

We have been losing badly at state and national levels in general. Our Party is not strongly enough defending working people. We do not need superdelegates. They are precisely what we do not need.

Those who win elections get interesting, challenging jobs. And if they do their jobs so as to please the voters, they get re-elected. That is enough reward for those who run for office. They should not be superdelegates. Their work is appreciated. If they want to be delegates at the Convention, they should run. That is how our system should work in my view.

the modern era. I am working on a number of campaigns currently. In addition, I actually ran for and was elected as a delegate to the National Convention and attended that convention. I actually know several super delegates and these persons are not lazy.

I am sad that you think that it is okay to brag about not voting for Hillary Clinton on this board. Part of the process of being a delegate to the National Convention required me to sign a pledge to support the nominee of the party. I know for a fact that many of the Sanders delegates who attended the National Convention laughed at the concept of honoring their pledge to support the nominee of the party. These sanders delegates were the same people who felt that it was appropriate to boo Congressman John Lewis and to call my daughter the C-word because she would not agree to try to convince me to change my vote. If you look carefully, you will find that attending a state convention also involves an express or implied agreement to support the candidates of the party I am sad that you are willing to brag on this board about not voting for the nominee of the party. I honor my commitments.

I am also sad that you think that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are lazy, party hacks and are corrupt. The claims are simply wrong. The elected officials who qualify as super delegates work hard to be elected and these officials represent their constituents. Part of this representation is the ability to serve an un-pledged delegate to the National Convention and to represent their constituents. The selection of the top of the ticket affects all candidates and the super delegates who I know take this obligation seriously. These elected officials are leaders of the party who represent important demographic groups who are real democrats and who support the nominees of the party.

Again, it is hard to take your posts seriously when you brag about not voting for the nominee of the party. I am sorry that the superdelegates hurt sanders' feelings but that is not a reason to change the system

I vote for Democrats. I also vote my conscience which causes me to vote for virtually all Democrats who run. I am a very active Democrat.

Sorry to disappoint you, but your assumptions about me are very incorrect.

I support the party and the nominees of the party. Since you refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, why are you posting on a board for democrats?

where a select few decide who will be the party's nominee.

In my state millions more voted in the primary than in the caucuses, which require far more effort to attend. But none of the votes in the primary mattered. So all the votes went to Bernie because he won the caucuses, and none went to Hillary -- who won the much larger primary by a large margin.

If majority rules, how come all the people who hate superdelegates aren't fighting caucuses?

outside the US for many years and, of course, was not a volunteer when I lived in small towns in other countries.

I really think that the superdelegates are anti-democratic and should not exist. It's one person, one vote. That is what is fair. If politicians want to be delegates, they should run or apply, depending on state law, and become one of the delegates in that way.

I am a volunteer, and I disagree. You may speak for yourself, but please do not speak for me.

The repugs wish they had had super delegates in 2016.

That is why they exist.

His epithets and criticisms of other candidates brought a sort of sadistic pleasure to his "followers." Any Republican who goes against Trump seems to lose or be so embarrassed that he or she cannot run again.

Superdelegates would not have done the Republican Party any good because Republicans did not have the courage ever to stand up for what is morally right. That is why Trump won their nomination -- because they are a party of depraved, socially biased when it comes to race, gender, ethnicity, etc., voters, because they are mean and base and have been encouraged to be so by the extremely greedy, extremely angry propaganda of many big corporations and preachers.

Sorry to say this, but there is no hope for the Republican Party.

Superdelegates would have been to fearful to challenge Trump. Think what Trump said about the likes of John McCain and all the other Republicans who dared to confront him in even the gentlest manner. Trump is a bully. Superdelegates would be helpless in dealing with him. Only the voters can deal with an reject Trump. That is why we Democrats need to be united. It is more important to be united and run visibly clean nominating processes than to flatter the egos of the superdelegates.

No to superdelegates.

for Trump if they had had super-delegates. None of the Republican "leaders" had the courage to speak up except maybe John McCain.

And now, they refuse to impeach him.

If those same politicians who now refuse to impeach Trump had been super-delegates -- maybe 20% of the delegates at the convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate), Trump would still have been elected.

Superdelegates suggest fear of the outcome of primaries and a desire for some position that is not earned but given. If politicians want to be delegates, let them run for the position at whatever level people are chosen for the position in the state. In California, I think we vote for them.

would've handled trump's sorry ass if they had had super delegates in 2016?

Don't make us laugh any harder than we already are.

They don't even have the courage to impeach Trump now even though they know more about what he has done than we do. They are afraid of Trump voters.

2016? Everyone here has read you bragging of NOT voting Democratic Party 2016. So as many here have said...ALL your points concerning our Party are moot.

I voted for Democrats in 2016.

And I have worked for the Democratic Party as a volunteer for many years.

Why do you ask?

ask anyone. YOU bragged about NOT voting HRC-2016. That is all that matters to me. The rest is moot. Means zilch to me.

in their own states.

Why should lobbyists, for example, get extra say in who the candidate for the party will be?

What is the function of this, if it makes no difference? Why is it even a thing then?

And I DO - do the work.

And - I won't be ignored. I'm not a political hack.

Fairly elected in my precinct in NJ.

You know what is really unfair? Those sleazy caucuses.

Whether you are or not, it needs to be one vote, one voter. Anything else is unfair and undemocratic. Sorry. I know you work hard, but it's for a good cause. It's your job to try to get others elected to their posts, and getting an extra vote in primaries and at the conventions is not the way to do it.

In the regular elections, no Democrat gets and extra vote just because he or she was elected as a party official. So we should not give them an extra vote in our primary and nomination process. The existence of superdelegates encourages distrust in our nominating process and gives the Democratic Party the appearance of corruption even when undeserved.

No to superdelegates.

They are not elected to determine who is nominated.

They are "special," and not equal to everyone else when it comes to picking candidates.

Are you aware of how any of this works??

voters. That is why I disapprove of their existence. All delegates should be voted for, elected by and sent by the voters via the vote at the polls. That is truly democratic. I don't believe in caucuses either.

They are not voted in by voters.

I think you might have intentionally misconstrued the statement of who is elected to create a classic straw man.

They typically vote for whoever won the primary/caucus in their state, but they aren't required to do so.

Sent depending on who won the primary. Unlike superdelegates whose sole purpose is to influence the election before it begins.

Even if they don't vote until the 2nd ballot (which we'll see a lot more of), they can and will still make endorsements. There will still be (in those lopsided years such as 2000 and 2016) reports that an overwhelming number have endorsed one candidate over another.

That said, I don't have much issue with the new rule, provided we completely do away with caucuses. If a non-viable candidate is going to win the nomination, it'll be more the result of disenfranchising caucuses than the new rule that only slightly reduces the influence of superdelegates.

Ie get to vote twice, which is what the poster was claiming was wrong.

If we go to second ballots they are not bound. So, what could actualy happen even more so with getting rid of super delegates, is one having a plurality of earned votes but not the number of needed delegates to lock the nomination. On the second vote they are not bound and have more power to go against the will of the people.

Never,not once have superdelegates gone against the candidate with the most votes.

This is all a red herring and can actually make it less fair.

Under DNC rules, no delegates are bound. Even pledged delegates can vote for a different candidate. The sanders delegates at the National Convention attacked my daughter and called her the c-word because she would not try to get me to change my vote

There is no functional difference between pledged delegates and so-called super delegates as to being bound to vote for a candidate

Both pledged delegates and so-called super delegates are not bound to vote for any candidate. The party deals with this by having the candidates vet their delegates. At the National Convention, a number of sanders delegates demanded that we vote for sanders and condemn Hillary Clinton.

The rules on this issue are clear

So we should not give them an extra vote in our primary and nomination process.

above all other values. It is the essence of democracy. It is what makes all Americans equal (along with equality before the law).

To give any person in the Democratic Party a "special" vote or an extra vote is undemocratic and violates the one person, one vote principle.

We should listen to each other and learn from each other, and giving a certain group of people an extra vote, an extra say on issues or candidates within our party is a perversion of the democratic idea.

We should all be equal. No one of us should be more equal than any other of us.

Again, you do not understand the process. I remember you claiming that all members of the Congressional Black Caucus were corrupt. That claim was amusing but false. This claim also does not make sense in the real world.

Again, please consider getting out into the real world and working on a campaign for a real candidate.

No one votes for a delegates directly and the concept of one man one vote does not apply to this process. The fact that you thinks that it does is as amusing you calling all members of the Congressional Black Caucus corrupt or lazy.

The voters voted for an elected these officials at their elected leaders and representative. These members of Congress and other elected officials are not lazy but worked hard to be elected to their office and deserved to be counted as leaders of the party.

Look, I was elected as a delegate to the 2016 convention. No voter voted for me. I was elected by the delegates to my state senate district caucus by other delegates after I was vetted by the Clinton campaign.

You do realize that California benefits from the super delegate system by having elected officials get extra seats for the California delegation. I am working hard to turn Texas blue so that Texas will pick up a few more delegates to the national convention as a reward for electing Democrats to congress. Your plan would reduce the representation of California. Why do you want to deny Maxine Waters or Senator Harris a vote?

The whole point of the superdelegates is that minorities are underrepresented in the US government. The superdelegate system makes sure their voices are heard in the Presidential selection process, even though many of their voices have been gerrymandered out of Congress.

Let the majority decide who wins.

There is no need or place for superdelegates.

The members of the CBC are far more important to the party compared to sanders and his supporters

Link to tweet

to friends, who attend meetings, we are what makes the Democratic Party electable and strong.

The party leaders are our servants. They should allow us to decide the direction of the Party and the candidates for the Party.

If they were really leaders, this would not be an issue because we and they would agree as to candidates and stands on the issues. It's because they really aren't leaders but rather they are bullies that they need this extra power.

Superdelegates make the Democratic Party look like a fraud. Either we are democratic or we should change our name. How about Superdelegate Party?

or who attend conventions at their own expense because they believe in democracy.

All who sacrifice to vote, to volunteer in campaigns, who believe in democracy and the Democratic Party are equally industrious.

Those who work hard in campaigns, those who sacrifice their time to even just vote, are just as industrious as members of the CBC and other so-called "party leaders."

All deserve to have their votes counted equally. Equality is the key.

Equality in work, equality in voting. That means no superdelegates.

Members of a minority cannot ask for a special role, say superdelegate status, if they really believe in equality. Only the mathematically challenged do not understand the meaning of "equal." Superdelegates bring inequality into the Democratic Party where it does not belong.

It takes a great deal of hard work to be elected to office. Calling these people lazy is really weak. Go work on a real campaign in the real world. Go organize a major fundraiser or a voter registration drive.

BTW, I was a delegate to the National Convention for Clinton. I campaign for and was elected as a delegate. The process goes to people like me who can afford to be major donors and who work on actual campaigns. The process favors people who work at the higher levels of the party and campaigns. I was given some grief in Philadelphia because I have only worked for 15+ years on party activities.

And, by the way, a lot of active Democrats, Party volunteers, Party enthusiasts did not vote for Hillary.

But they probably voted for the rest of the Democratic Party candidates.

The existence and votes of superdelegates do not make party members who supported a candidate who was not selected as the nominee want to vote for the nominee. There is a scent of unfairness in a process that includes superdelegate votes. It's just a fact. Those who support the concept of superdelegates need to understand that. Their existence is detrimental to the Party.

against trump.

you admitted it yourself and are trying to defend those who did not vote for Clinton even though she got most votes including without superdelegates.

I do not like the idea of superdelegates because it is profoundly undemocratic.

We can do better than the super-duper-delegate dance. The superdelegates are an egot trip that we do not need in the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party has lost so many statehouses and state legislatures and representatives and senators. Stressing that we are a truly democratic party will help us encourage people who agree with us on the issues to be sure to turn out to vote and get involved in politics because their vote will really, really count.

I am 75 now, but I have been a very, very active Democrat including an officer in my local club. That people cast aspersions on my membership in the Democratic Party is petty, mean and ill informed.

If you didn't vote for her, your so-called efforts in the Dem party were in vain.

And don't segue into the usual "oh the Democrats have lost so many seats" - that's not because of Superdelegates.

You're suggesting that the undemocratic party is the Democratic Party.

Did you have a problem with Superdelegates in 2008? or in the years preceding? I'm willing to bet you didn't. Maybe you should ask Tad Devine why he helped establish superdelegates in the first place, in 1982.

You wanna know why the GOP has so much power? It's partly because people on the left don't understand power. Idiots refused to vote in midterms 2010 and that move handed the GOP the power to gerrymander districts so much so a spam sandwich with an R behind its name is guaranteed to win in some states. They've also mastered the art of voter suppression. Their senate congressional leader and now Senate majority leader abused his power to refuse a democratic President his constitutional right to get a hearing for his SCJ nominee.

But your hot take here, if we condense your arguments, is that it is the Democratic party which is un-democratic.

And people who refused to vote Clinton in the general ( unlike those living in blue states who decided to be useful and trade their vote with someone in a swing state) should engage in more introspection. The recalcitrant mindset of those who couldn't get over their dude losing in the 2016 primaries FAIR AND SQUARE is responsible for Trump being in office. I don't care what State they were in-- Voting for people who cannot win, Voting third party, or not voting was a dereliction of duty on every level imaginable. Because voting is not just about you, it's civic action. Voting and Elections are about consequences, not your vanity.

Don't blame superdelegates or the "establishment" for that shit.

I agree with your analysis.

Thank you for this.

Thanks for this

plus infinity