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

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
Sun Feb 21, 2016, 11:48 PM Feb 2016

I thought we won the Revolutionary War.. then why do we give a select few of the Ruling Class votes

that are equal to 10s of or 100s of thousand of American citizen votes. "super" delegates are illegitimate, corrupt and unAmerican. Any one who supports them puts them self in direct conflict with 1 person 1 vote & A government for, by & of the People. This is embarrassing to our Party and we should end this soviet style politic now. The voice of the People should elect our leaders !!

71 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I thought we won the Revolutionary War.. then why do we give a select few of the Ruling Class votes (Original Post) berniepdx420 Feb 2016 OP
How many times today are you going to post this same stuff? leftofcool Feb 2016 #1
Or, join the Party, become a leader and change the rules. brooklynite Feb 2016 #2
I'm a life long member .. as is my entire family at least 3 generations back.. and..we could change berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #8
Perhaps I wasn't clear, I mean join the Party organization... brooklynite Feb 2016 #12
Maybe in the future when the kids are grown.. run a couple businesses ... super busy berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #21
How many more times today will you post nothing of substance... oh forgot... defend democracy..ok berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #7
Join the party... Bohemianwriter Feb 2016 #10
How about if we don't like the rules of our party, we change them! reformist2 Feb 2016 #40
YEAH! bobbobbins01 Feb 2016 #48
The majority of them were ELECTED. n/t Lucinda Feb 2016 #3
can you please explain who you think elected the "super" delegates... this should be good berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #9
Great question - I have no idea & ought to... Merryland Feb 2016 #13
Some hold elected office...governors, US Congressmen, Senators. HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #34
The House of Lords reconstituted berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #36
More like a Politburo. HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #38
Let's hear it for the superdelegates! Art_from_Ark Feb 2016 #46
The people who voted them in to office, except for the few that have distinguished party status. Lucinda Feb 2016 #37
For the record.. you support this system berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #44
I told you how it works. n/t Lucinda Feb 2016 #50
And you support it? Ed Suspicious Feb 2016 #51
Actually, no. But I believe that each state party should choose their delegates Lucinda Feb 2016 #57
see 57 Lucinda Feb 2016 #58
and I asked you whether you support such a system ? berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #54
The others are lobbyists or people that work indirectly but for Clinton - cool Democracy we have nt Dragonfli Feb 2016 #52
You know, by the way, that after the Revolutionary War... brooklynite Feb 2016 #4
yes there was also slavery and oh the small thing that women couldn't vote or own property... that's berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #11
No, I'm pointing out that your Stars and Stripes image of Democracy is made up. brooklynite Feb 2016 #14
I agree ... I just can't believe so many other Democrats don't call this stuff out... trying my berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #22
I recall someone saying Merryland Feb 2016 #5
Yes.. very undemocratic and unAmerican as well as illegitimate... you notice they use the "super" berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #15
"you notice they use the "super"".....No, they don't brooklynite Feb 2016 #23
just look at the flack I got by saying it was a tie.. 51 to 51 and Bernie leads in popular voting... berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #25
It IS true...and it's meaningless... brooklynite Feb 2016 #29
the reason being..it's the only raw numbers we have gotten from the DLC.. Iowa was a tie and she berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #31
Not speculation...informed opinion brooklynite Feb 2016 #33
the speculation point is arguable..granted...just meant it hasn't happened yet... berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #42
Though I wish black support for Sanders was better, he still has a path to the nomination. HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #47
The founders were wealthy white guys gwheezie Feb 2016 #6
This is why George Carlin... Bohemianwriter Feb 2016 #16
I loved George... he freed my mind as a teenager... berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #28
is that what you're advocating for... what is your point ? berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #17
Now... Bohemianwriter Feb 2016 #32
Thank God I'm an atheist gwheezie Feb 2016 #62
If Bernie has more votes by popular Politicalboi Feb 2016 #18
I will be headed to Philadelphia.. and so should anyone else who believes in Democracy and a berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #19
Spammmmmmmming. Codeine Feb 2016 #20
Why don't you just pass over the thread then.. can't you see we are discussing important things berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #24
It's not the discussion. Codeine Feb 2016 #26
BS.. add something or pass over and leave us be berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #27
Or point out how repetitious you're being. nt Codeine Feb 2016 #30
If you don't want to read it don't click on it berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #43
No you aren't discussing important things. You're ranting. mythology Feb 2016 #49
I'm with you on the gerrymandering... as for the other.. you have missed multiple points and I am berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #55
Some animals are Bettie Feb 2016 #35
Tell 'em, if they don't want to read it, don't click on it. snot Feb 2016 #39
We've come full circle. It's like it never took place. n/t Skwmom Feb 2016 #41
We have a choice between a lone billionaire, and a candidate backed by a group of billionaires. Yay! reformist2 Feb 2016 #45
It was the white ruling class over here that fought the Revolution here. White landed gentry Jitter65 Feb 2016 #53
There was a time - not that long ago - sadoldgirl Feb 2016 #56
Have you been to a state convention? Have you ever voted for or met a member of the DNC? Gothmog Feb 2016 #59
I almost am sick of my own self repeating over and over gwheezie Feb 2016 #60
Historical note: the Revolutionary War empowered the ruling class Bucky Feb 2016 #61
The Revolutionary War was a revolt of the Colonial 1% Recursion Feb 2016 #63
You need to have another look at your history textbook BainsBane Feb 2016 #64
You're quite slow on the uptake ...So many things wrong and misleading with your post.. you're berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #66
No, you're the one who is confusing the information BainsBane Feb 2016 #71
Google: tad Devine superdelegates nt geek tragedy Feb 2016 #65
sorry but tad devine doesn't trump the American way... it is illegitimate.. plus the msm and the berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #67
Only 3 states have voted. nt geek tragedy Feb 2016 #68
Exactly...but here is the scheme...give it a quick read berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #69
Well now you're just red baiting. Nt gwheezie Feb 2016 #70

leftofcool

(19,460 posts)
1. How many times today are you going to post this same stuff?
Sun Feb 21, 2016, 11:51 PM
Feb 2016

If you don't like the rules, start your own party.

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
8. I'm a life long member .. as is my entire family at least 3 generations back.. and..we could change
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:06 AM
Feb 2016

it.. if it wasn't for the likes of you who seem to prefer Britain style politic

brooklynite

(94,594 posts)
12. Perhaps I wasn't clear, I mean join the Party organization...
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:09 AM
Feb 2016

...get a position with your local Party Committee. Play a role in the policy decisions the Party makes.

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
7. How many more times today will you post nothing of substance... oh forgot... defend democracy..ok
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:04 AM
Feb 2016

you have 5 posts then thats all you get..

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
40. How about if we don't like the rules of our party, we change them!
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:39 AM
Feb 2016

To be honest, the super-delegates need to resign immediately. It's an embarrassment to any institution that would dare call itself "democratic".
 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
34. Some hold elected office...governors, US Congressmen, Senators.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:32 AM
Feb 2016

Others are state party chairs and other DNC committee people, who may or may not also hold local or state office. Previous presidents and House and Senate leaders also are superdelegates.

Lucinda

(31,170 posts)
37. The people who voted them in to office, except for the few that have distinguished party status.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:38 AM
Feb 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate


"In United States politics, a "superdelegate" is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention or Republican National Convention that is seated automatically and chooses who they want to vote for. DNC superdelegates include distinguished party leaders and elected officials, including all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors."

So, in fact, these people have been elected to speak on behalf of those who put them in office on a variety of matters. One of he current perks of the job is that they also have a say in who our party nominates.

You mean you didn't know?
Even Bernie is a superdelegate. One of TWO he has so far from VT.


edited to add quotation marks

Lucinda

(31,170 posts)
57. Actually, no. But I believe that each state party should choose their delegates
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:44 AM
Feb 2016

in whatever way the decide to do so.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
52. The others are lobbyists or people that work indirectly but for Clinton - cool Democracy we have nt
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:10 AM
Feb 2016

brooklynite

(94,594 posts)
4. You know, by the way, that after the Revolutionary War...
Sun Feb 21, 2016, 11:54 PM
Feb 2016

...there were about 150 years of Party Leadership making decisions on Presidential candidates?

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
11. yes there was also slavery and oh the small thing that women couldn't vote or own property... that's
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:08 AM
Feb 2016

not what your advocating is it... Are you really supporting such an unAmerican corrupt voting system ??

brooklynite

(94,594 posts)
14. No, I'm pointing out that your Stars and Stripes image of Democracy is made up.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:11 AM
Feb 2016

Things have gotten better in the past 50 years; just not the way you want things...

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
22. I agree ... I just can't believe so many other Democrats don't call this stuff out... trying my
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:18 AM
Feb 2016

best to illuminate the problem...

Merryland

(1,134 posts)
5. I recall someone saying
Sun Feb 21, 2016, 11:57 PM
Feb 2016

that the "super delegates" traditionally would likely change their pledges if Bernie is the popular favorite & if they declined it would be out and out convention revolution. But you have an important point - this is unfair & undemocratic.

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
15. Yes.. very undemocratic and unAmerican as well as illegitimate... you notice they use the "super"
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:13 AM
Feb 2016

delegates to put their finger on the scale.. between msm and the clinton campaign... a good number of Americans think Hillary has a giant lead.. and that is blatantly false and just another example of the incestuous rigging of our political and economic system. And we have Democrats on this site defending it because it is perceived by them as serving their purpose.. It is an embarrassment to our Party and a kin to Soviet style politic.

brooklynite

(94,594 posts)
23. "you notice they use the "super"".....No, they don't
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:19 AM
Feb 2016

"Superdelegates" is a media term, like "Blue States". All they are are "unpledged Delegates"

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
25. just look at the flack I got by saying it was a tie.. 51 to 51 and Bernie leads in popular voting...
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:22 AM
Feb 2016

you know what i am saying is true.. it distorts the reality of the election..

brooklynite

(94,594 posts)
29. It IS true...and it's meaningless...
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:24 AM
Feb 2016

...you're picking the popular vote number from exactly ONE State Primary...

...which will be completely turned around by the votes from South Carolina on Saturday...

...and then blown out of the water on Super Tuesday.

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
31. the reason being..it's the only raw numbers we have gotten from the DLC.. Iowa was a tie and she
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:27 AM
Feb 2016

only won Nevada by roughly 5%.. He won NH by 22% Bernie is ahead in votes no doubt (good band)

Your last two points are speculation... and don't deal with the fact that the perception of the race is being distorted by allocating the "super" delegate totals to Hillary in most graphics seen...

brooklynite

(94,594 posts)
33. Not speculation...informed opinion
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:31 AM
Feb 2016

Sanders was asked where he thought he'd do well in future. He failed to mention South Carolina or any Southern State. His performance in Nevada reinforces the understanding that he does poorly with African American voters, who make up a significant share of votes in SC, NC, GA, VA, TN, KY....

Right now he's about 24 pts behind in South Carolina. That one State will put Clinton 50,000 votes up according to your model. Then comes Super Tuesday...

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
42. the speculation point is arguable..granted...just meant it hasn't happened yet...
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:45 AM
Feb 2016

clinton is looking good in SC and southern states in general... not arguing that point... I am arguing against the "super" delegates existing at all and more specifically that they are added to most vote totals I see today.

I think VA & NC will be closer than the others you mentioned.. I would be surprised with a squeaker in VA

only a couple polls in Va since November and one of those is PPP.. which you know..

NC is tightening ...sanders still has some work to do

Without factoring the "super" delegates..we actually have a fight on our hands.. CA will be huge !!



 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
47. Though I wish black support for Sanders was better, he still has a path to the nomination.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:53 AM
Feb 2016

In 2008 Clinton came very close with no black support, no youth support, no support from the left, and two states she would have won that were disallowed. Sanders has exceptionally strong youth support, including most black youth. Overall, his 30% support from blacks is about 25% better than Clinton in '08. He's got strong support from the left, and good support from working class whites (a Clinton strength in '08). He can get there with that, if it comes down to it.

 

Bohemianwriter

(978 posts)
16. This is why George Carlin...
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:13 AM
Feb 2016

...calls American democracy and the Constitution stunningly full of shit...



All of a sudden George Carlin explained to me the mentality of the Kansas I went to school with in a small town north of Topeka 26 years ago. Welcome to Brainwash & Bullshit Town!
Turned out that the captain of the football team was to become a republican because his daddy was republican. Not a bad guy, but still a bit simple minded...

 

Bohemianwriter

(978 posts)
32. Now...
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:28 AM
Feb 2016

An upper class white woman with deep roots in a religion that condoned slavery and persecution of Jews is campaigning against a liberal Jew with a working background...

The most vile part is that the entire Bible is a deeply rooted propaganda piece against Jews in general...


 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
18. If Bernie has more votes by popular
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:13 AM
Feb 2016

And the SD don't listen to the people, then write in or vote for Jill Stein or any of the other 5 women on the ballot.

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
19. I will be headed to Philadelphia.. and so should anyone else who believes in Democracy and a
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:15 AM
Feb 2016

government for, by and of the People

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
24. Why don't you just pass over the thread then.. can't you see we are discussing important things
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:20 AM
Feb 2016

like governance here.. just pass on or give your 2 cents.. but don't try and belittle us into being silent...

You call these discussions Spam.. whats wrong with you...

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
49. No you aren't discussing important things. You're ranting.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:57 AM
Feb 2016

Saying that Sanders is leading the vote total when the two states he lost use a different method to determine their delegates and using that as a way to claim some sort of moral claim to victory for Sanders is just silly.

If you are up in arms about one person one vote, the House gerrymandering is a far more important feature. In 2012, Democratic House candidates won 1.4 million more votes and yet Republicans after winning only 49% of the vote won 54% of House seats.

But you are also just blatantly wrong about applying the notion of 1 person 1 vote to the party. Legally speaking, the party could pick a name out of the phone book as long as they met the age/citizenship requirements. The rules were known before the process started. The time to change them was before hand, not in the middle.

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
55. I'm with you on the gerrymandering... as for the other.. you have missed multiple points and I am
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:20 AM
Feb 2016

too sleepy to explain them.. think it all through... and we can chat tomorrow if you like

Bettie

(16,110 posts)
35. Some animals are
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:35 AM
Feb 2016

more equal than others. Or so it would seem.

And no, I'm not calling them animals literally, I'm referencing a book, just for those who don't get it or look to take offense.

I have seen posters say that these people, the superdelagates, have the absolute right to have more say than the voters because...reasons.

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
45. We have a choice between a lone billionaire, and a candidate backed by a group of billionaires. Yay!
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:47 AM
Feb 2016
 

Jitter65

(3,089 posts)
53. It was the white ruling class over here that fought the Revolution here. White landed gentry
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:16 AM
Feb 2016

that ruled here. Held slaves and indentured servants, wealthy and well educated. They were just British citizens who didn't like being under the thumb of the King of Great Britton. They wanted to be the ruling class and they were.

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
56. There was a time - not that long ago -
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:26 AM
Feb 2016

when they did not exist, namely during
the McGovern election.
After that the party decided to take the
power away from the general voting dems.

It can be done again, but that means we
have to take over the party or defeat it.

A goal, I think, which is very much reflected
in Bernie's idea of a revolution.

Gothmog

(145,313 posts)
59. Have you been to a state convention? Have you ever voted for or met a member of the DNC?
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:50 AM
Feb 2016

The process of becoming a member of the DNC is not that easy and involves years and years of hard work in the party. Why don't you try attending your state Democratic convention and see how the process works.

gwheezie

(3,580 posts)
60. I almost am sick of my own self repeating over and over
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:00 AM
Feb 2016

If the revolution is to succeed, the revolutionaries need to change the party from the bottom up. Depending on one guy to reform politics is naive and will fail. So, I agree with you.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
63. The Revolutionary War was a revolt of the Colonial 1%
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:21 AM
Feb 2016

Hancock, Washington, Adams, Franklin: these were literally the richest guys in the country. The revolution furthered their interests, and for the most part it was only the richest 1/3rd of the colonists that supported it.

BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
64. You need to have another look at your history textbook
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:25 AM
Feb 2016

The revolutionary war wasn't fought on behalf of working people. It was the colonial ruling class that wanted independence from the British monarchy. Our founding fathers were the richest men in the land, and many of them slaveholders. Only propertied white men could vote. The electoral system was purposefully set up to distance government from the people. This mythical past were "the people" ruled America did not exist, ever.

Superdelegates were put into place in 1968 to wrest power away from the party big wigs.

After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
Prior to that time, the party could and often did determine the nominee in smoke-filled back rooms. That is what is meant by a brokered convention.

Before the era of presidential primary elections, political party conventions were routinely brokered. The Democratic Party required two-thirds of delegates to choose a candidate, starting with the first Democratic National Convention in 1832, and then at every convention from 1844 until 1936. This made it far more likely to have a brokered convention, particularly when two strong factions existed. The most infamous example was at the 1924 Democratic National Convention (the Klanbake), where the divisions between Wets and Drys on Prohibition (and other issues) led to 102 ballots of deadlock between frontrunners Alfred E. Smith and William G. McAdoo before dark horse John W. Davis was chosen as a compromise candidate on the 103rd ballot. Adlai Stevenson (of the 1952 Democratic Party) and Thomas E. Dewey (of the 1948 Republican Party) were the most recent "brokered convention" presidential nominees, of their respective parties. The last winning U.S. presidential nominee produced by a brokered convention was Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1932.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention#Brokered_conventions_in_history

If you want to change the Super Delegate system that was implemented in 1968, that entails becoming actively involved in the Democratic Party organization. The Super Delegate system is hardly new. It got a great deal of attention in 2008. That means people had eight years to get involved and try to do something about it, yet no one did. Now you want to change the rules mid-cycle because you think it will favor Bernie. That isn't going to happen, nor should it.

I really don't think you need to worry though. It should be evident a week from this Tuesday that the candidate who holds the lead in superdelegates will also be building a formidable majority of pledged delegates via the popular vote.

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
66. You're quite slow on the uptake ...So many things wrong and misleading with your post.. you're
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:35 AM
Feb 2016

confusing delegates in 68 with "super" delegates in 84.. Your reference to smoke filled back rooms is a good and current reference to the illegitimate, unAmerican, corrupt "super" delegates. I'm not going to even discuss your short sighted soliloquy about the Revolutionary War.

I see no point in having a fair logical discussion with you... I am quite familiar with your work..

BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
71. No, you're the one who is confusing the information
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:37 PM
Feb 2016

Go read the Wikipedia entries. Superdelegates are what were implemented in 1968 to make the party more accountable to popular input. Delegates were not implemented for the first time in 1968. What an absurd notion. I provided the links. All you need do is care enough to read them.

You're not going to discuss it because you have nothing to back it up. You are operating on mythology, and mythology is not history. Could it be possible you don't even know who was allowed to vote in the early Republic?

Because information doesn't fit how you want to see the world doesn't make it or me illogical. Clearly you are unprepared to provide any evidence to support your claims. Moreover, you don't even care.

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
67. sorry but tad devine doesn't trump the American way... it is illegitimate.. plus the msm and the
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:41 AM
Feb 2016

hill campaign add them into the vote... they don't even vote till the convention... it's 51 to 51 with Sanders leading the Popular Vote.. the "super" delegates are a throw back to the Politburo of the Soviet way of politics. It is embarrassing to our Party and to our Country. People who support it are against Democracy 1 person 1 vote.. of, for, by

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
69. Exactly...but here is the scheme...give it a quick read
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:45 AM
Feb 2016
"kos, you are our only hope... please set the record straight, 51 to 51 and not 502 to 70"

The 2008 race was rife with talk of super delegates, too, and the Clinton campaign was happy to tout her early lead in Super Delegates, as a sign of her support among the serious people in the Party. Sound familiar?

This time around, though, there is something new at play.

Earlier today I went looking for the actual Delegate Count, because I wanted to reply to someone's comment. So I googled "pledged delegate count democratic primary". Guess what I got?

A bunch of links to talk of the Democratic Primary and the count of Clinton 502 to Sanders 70. Now this primary session is most certainly not my first time at the rodeo, and I knew that number was not the Pledged Delegate Count (the delegates won in the first three states to have voted already) but those PLUS the unpledged super delegates.

Ok, so I figured it should be easy to find those real numbers, the ones that reflect not the view of the Party faithful but The Voters -- you know, the people who will be choosing our nominee, not the folks who get to add their count at the Convention like the frosting on the cake.

I was wrong. I spent a half hour reading articles from a pretty wide variety of sites and all I could find was that 502 to 70 number.


http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1489057/-kos-you-are-our-only-hope-please-set-the-record-straight-51-to-51-and-not-502-to-70
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I thought we won the Revo...