2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumGive me one honest, democratic justification for the Superdelegates?
One that doesn't boil down to these party powerfuls "deserving" to have a vote worth that of 10,000 average voters cause they're just better than us. Why not just go back to having the nominees picked in smoke filled rooms? It's ridiculous.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)As for 1968, most of the delegates were superdelegates.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Coulda went back to old rich men picking the candidates. If it needs changing it needs to happen in a non election year. Well, at least a non major election year. You do realize the party gets to make up its rules, right? The establishment will always favor itself. Those not a part of party processes will get no say. Working against the party from outside will just get an equal and opposite reaction from the established party. Rule changes come from within, not from left leaning non democrats not liking the party.
Join your local party. Have a say. Get involved. Things do not happen fast in america and the Democratic Party has been around for a long time, that will not change anythime soon.
jfern
(5,204 posts)And the question wasn't why only 20% of delegates should be superdelegates.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I will vote for you.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And I say stuff in public. But hey, two votes is good enough! Yours and mine!!
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I like your two selling points. :
bravenak
(34,648 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)1972 is the year used to justify superdelegates, since we dumb voters picked McGovern
1968 is exactly what superdelegates are designed to cause - the party overruling the voters.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It looked bad.
jfern
(5,204 posts)What's the argument in favor of them? BTW, about half of superdelegates are white males.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)There are only people here! I wish folks would chill. We can change stuff but it will be establishment rules so Idk if Folks will like any of the changes.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)convention. Apparently he is going to try to force the DNC to get rid of superdelegates once and for all as part of conceding at the nomination (as well as killing the TPP). If he succeeds, that will be one good thing to come of it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They wont get rid of all of them, but I think we should limit them to elected official so no lobbyists get votes. Just our senators and our congress people. We actually vote for them. And they are more likely to not risk their seat on a bad choice at a convention.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The other option is give them votes but say their vote must align with the pledged delegate outcome.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)A set amount proportional to population that get elected by popular vote is how I'd like it. So that we know who our delegates are, but they should run only publically financed campaigns so we dont have them buying delegate votes.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_%28performer%29
We can't...she's been gone for years now.
(sorry...it was there).
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I loved her. She was badass.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The problem was the party bosses(such as Mayor Daley of Chicago) and LBJ imposing Humphrey as a pro-war candidate on a pro-war platform(which Humphrey later moved slightly away from at the end of September, and gained ground sharply in the polls after so doing) and doing so in a way the brutally suppressed open discussion inside the convention hall(there was only one hour...ONE HOUR...of debate time permitted on the Vietnam plank, the only issue of 1968 that really mattered)and brutal suppression of protest in the streets outside.
If you want more information on how this played out, read "Miami and the Siege of Chicago" by Norman Mailer and "McCarthy for President" by Arthur Herzog.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Is all i meant
We can talk about fixing the system, but it wont happen this year and it will STILL favor the establishment bevause they make the rules.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If you read the books I listed, you'll get a better historical picture of why things were like that in Chicago.
The lesson I take from that disaster is that dissent must never be suppressed and people who are backing the runner-up in any contested primary should never be treated like dirt(as the McCarthy and other antiwar delegates in Chicago were, to say nothing of how those who wanted to march in the streets were treated).
The idea is to find a way to have the debate go on with respect and fairness to everybody, and to have nobody just told at the end of the process that they have to "shut up and get in line".
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Gothmog
(145,303 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Almost 70% of the voters in the Democratic primaries voted for either Robert Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy, the two progressive antiwar candidates.
After Robert Kennedy was assassinated, the party bosses made it clear that they would not respect the overwhelming vote against the war in Vietnam and for more social spending and imposed Hubert Humphrey, sitting vice president and handpicked successor of the discredited Lyndon Johnson, as nominee.
The result was a Democratic defeat in November that would never otherwise have occurred.
agracie
(950 posts)Here ya go:
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)One person, one vote!
Even Repugs have gotten rid of Superdelegates cause it just looks shady as hell.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)This is just a Democratic Party exclusive thing?!?!?
TDale313
(7,820 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Here, learn with me!
http://www.bustle.com/articles/141611-does-the-gop-have-superdelegates-the-republican-partys-nomination-rules-are-different-this-year
The technical answer is that yes, the Republican Party does have superdelegates. However, they function differently for the GOP than Democrats, and in 2016, Republican superdelegates will have way, way less power and autonomy than the superdelegates on the Democratic side.
Son of a bitch.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)polemic_realism
(66 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)At least in this sense.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)winner take all states. The problem with that is it also can be unfair and undemocratic. Winning by one vote in those states will offset 20 point losses in all the rest and give you the nomination.
The point is to try to avoid a brokered convention because that almost always results in a loss for the party that has one.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Super Delegate system.
"It's pretty hard to win a nomination in a contested race and almost impossible to win without the superdelegeates," Devine said in 2008 in an interview on NPR.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)I might also remind some that 'fringe candidates' could come from the right, as well.
demosocialist
(184 posts)still don't agree with superdelegates...
but wanted to reply to tell you I like the Steinbeck quote, made me lol as I was reading the responses... thank you
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)run for delegate they will easily win, and keep rank and file Dems from being delegates. Take them out of the fix and more grassroots activists can get delegate slots.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Ya know, I just got into politics because of Bernie. I've been in this game since he first announced.
As such, I made sure to educate myself on that Electoral College thing that everyone's talking about. I understand the ideal of the delegate distribution with the Electoral College, I also understand how that's bad too.
BUT, from what I've learned thus far, don't Superdelegates supercede the purpose of the Electoral College delegates? I mean, CLEARLY, Super Delegates can choose whoever they want. And judging by Howard dickhead Dean's tweets today, he doesn't HAVE to follow any constiuency as he said he's NOT an elected official as a Super Delegate and can choose who he feels is best.
So really... yeah. I'm not seeing a democratic justification for super delegates. no.
FourScore
(9,704 posts)Now, he is just status quo, despite how terrible he has been treated by the Democratic Party establishment.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)MONEYYYY
FourScore
(9,704 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Allowing representatives to make all the important decisions for us and all.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)at least here in the South.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I have no idea why you wish to argue with me about something we both acknowledge.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Republicans have a small enough number that they don't have a chance to change the outcome, and they aren't lobbyists.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)A "matter of scale" is only relevant if your sample size is tiny, as opposed to a sample size that is within the thousands.
That is the point I was trying to make. Chance doesn't change the outcome if you have a sample size of enough variety to account for the pool of entities.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)so the chance they could "swing" a close primary is very small. Especially with the winner-take-all states in their primaries.
Even then, 100% of their delegates are in elected positions - party leaders. They can actually lose their position if they piss off the party membership.
On our side, a very large number of our superdelegates do not hold elected positions. Such as Howard Dean, who's now a Pharma lobbyist, and today said he did not care about the 86-13 win his state gave Sanders, he's still backing Clinton.
The Republicans fundamentally can not have the same Superdelegate problems as we can have.
Damn.
That's rather a disappointing shower of rain facing us, isn't it?
jfern
(5,204 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)And championed it in 2008 when Candidate Obama criticized its existence.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)In theory.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)...have more influence than regular people, which puts a bias into managing the status quo.
Stability is a double-edged sword.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)She has the support of the powerful people that want minimal change.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)PWPippin
(213 posts)Howard Dean has acknowledged in a tweet that super delegates don't represent people, that he wasn't elected by anyone and he'll do what he thinks is right for the country.
I was a Dean delegate in Maine. I think I'll have a ceremonial burning of the shirt I have from the campaign. Or, more appropriately "Berning".
By the way, I think caucuses are undemocratic, too. Voters can't keep their vote secret and may feel influenced to vote differently if bosses, neighbors, friends, family can know how they vote.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Damn. A delegate for him. Sorry, Pippin. You shouldn't have had to read what went down today, that was just sadness.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Who are you, and what have you done with Dr. Dean????
Aerows
(39,961 posts)It has NO benefit to the American people. Everybody across the spectrum are absolutely pissed now that they have learned of how they operate.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)if we include Republicans that are also being unfairly had.
I am by no means a big ol' Republican supporter, but we ALL deserve fairness at the polls. The day that ceases to be true of my Democratic Party, is the day I'll leave it, too.
Fair voting should be the goal of folks on both sides, those in the middle, and everybody that even remotely cares about justice, fairness and prosperity under government.
senz
(11,945 posts)Oh ... you wanted "honest" ... and ... "democratic" ...
Oh well.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)And Tad Devine, Sanders adviser, was one its is chief creators.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I look forward to see how that turns out.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)If the superdelegates went against the winner, I hate to think.
I'm just sick of seeing them included in the totals now.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Without them, the insiders would have fewer plum jobs to reward lobbyists with for their "service".
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I seldom watch videos for factual information, as reading is so much faster.
From what I can glean from a couple links, yeah, some cognitive dissonance.
Still, wrong is wrong.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)If I find one I'll let you know. He knows now that it was a bad idea but you know; rocks, hard places, lesser evils, etc.. I think more focus should be on holding both candidates to replacing DWS, she brings on extra scrutiny by how she operates. We can limit super delegates but what trust do the ranks have in her is a question that needs asking. I do not hate her but I think other than fundraising she is being selfish in her operations.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Unless, of course, you do a Dr. Dean on me.... ;->
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We'd do fine on that blue lagoon island. No need for a leader at all! We could just vote on everything.
Dean cant come.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I wish!!! My utopia!
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)In creation of it saying it was bad idea and we should reexamine it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Think about it....
A good ole Democrat for whom I worked so hard, Howard Dean, became an insurance lobbyist, was quite happy at one time when he proudly announced himself to represent "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party"...
But, now, as one of VT's SuperDelegate, he's quite proud to announce that he will make up his OWN mind when considering the Democratic nominee... declared delegates or not.
Come on... Come right OUT with it... You think YOUR vote counts more (as it represents 10,000 votes in VT) and you now think that one vote, one count is not part of any Democratic process in which you'd be involved.
Hmmmm.... So, now we have a TRUE definition of what it means be the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
He's a fucking sell out fascist with this attitude. Fuck you, American voter. Money and influence in the insurance industry trumps democracy. And... Vermont can kiss his ass.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I'm OK with guaranteeing them attendance, but not a vote. It's ridiculous.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)If they want a vote tell them to vote in their Primary or Caucus like the rest of us. They shouldn't get 2 votes.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)It is a disgrace to democracy.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)which does not even question this farce. The corporate media is trying to advance this undemocratic process by regularly showing delegate counts that grossly inflate Hillary Clinton's lead. They don't even question the concept of handing Democratic Party insiders votes that are equal to the combined votes of 10,000 ordinary citizens.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Depaysement
(1,835 posts)They don't want the Left to win because when George McGovern and Walter Mondale ran they lost badly because they were the Left and because the Party needs money so it needs big donor and corporate cash to feed consultants because then the Party bigwigs get money when the leave elected office and it's nice to have money.
Whew.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)But it does suck that our laws mandate that there be two primary parties.
That's a large part of our problem right there.
The only thing "democratic" about superdelegates is that some of them get their superdelegate status by having been elected by the voters in the first place (eg, governors, legislators).
egduj
(805 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Under the bus? Rather ironic that he created super delegates.
southerncrone
(5,506 posts)Response to TDale313 (Original post)
Peachhead22 This message was self-deleted by its author.