I think some of the ignorance is intentional, but I'm starting to think that maybe some just have no idea and have no interest in finding out. They just bleat out the talking points about establishment and insiders.

Some have even insisted that they're not even elected officials.

Get that...members of Congress, governors, and former presidents/VPs aren't elected officials.

Even the DNC members are elected by state Democratic Party convention delegates.

Most people won't recognize the DNC members' names, though, unless they are involved in their state's Democratic Party organization.

In fact, almost every delegate to the Democratic Nominating Convention who is not a super delegate is also chosen by the Democratic Party Organization in each state. Pledged delegates are chosen, based proportionally on a state or local district's primary or caucus results. They are chosen by being elected by party members.

Pledged delegates far outnumber super delegates, who aren't pledged to any candidate. Those automatic, unpledged delegates use their best judgment to decide for whom to vote. Pledges delegates also do that if the candidate they are pledged to withdraws or does not receive 15% or more of the vote on any ballot at the convention. Judgment.

I started a thread a couple days ago in a similar vein in response to one of the posters who insisted that they're not elected officials. In another thread, I even bolded the word "elected" about a dozen times in the description of the delegates and it still didn't sink in. At that point, the ignorance is pretty clearly intentional.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287592252

However, there are still people who don't know, so posts like this one and your earlier one help spread the word, I think.

I think the number of people who are legitimately interested and just aren't aware of the details for whatever reason greatly outnumber the people who know and pretend otherwise. There's so much misinformation thrown around that it's good to get some clarity and perspective, whenever possible.

That's very interesting.

is important. Without that understanding, it's easy to become confused about the process.

though I regret that we didn't learn more of this while we were in school. How our political process and government works should be a top priority in our educational system.

The problem is that too many people don't care enough to go learn about it.

Anyone can type super delegates or superdelegates into a Google search. When they do, the first result that show up is this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

That Wikipedia article explains it pretty well.

that in this extraordinary information era, so few people use the tools available to them to expand their knowledge. I love that I don't have to spend hours at a library going through books, periodicals, and microfilm to find answers. Unfortunately, not all people are discerning when searching for information and they get sucked into conspiracy theories and hoaxes. Or they seek out whatever info confirms their beliefs.

I use Wikipedia a lot. It is the sort of resource we could only dream of years ago. One of the major upsides of the digital age. My son loves that he can pull out his phone and ask the most obscure questions. Personally, I never talk to devices, but he is a technology junkie, which is fine. Every family should have one of those!

are pretty good, and always end with a link list that can take you deeper into the subject. I use it a lot as a first source when I'm looking for information, and then branch out from there.

That's true, at least, for non-controversial subjects where there's no reason for anyone to mess with people's minds. It's a little less reliable for topics that are in dispute. Since anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, unless it is locked for some reason, stuff can creep in there from time to time.

But for science-based info, it's good. For general information on general subjects, it's good. There's almost no topic anyone is likely to think of that doesn't have a Wikipedia article about it. That's a very, very good thing.

I use it a lot of history or geography. For controversial subjects on current events or politics, I prefer reputable newspapers and periodicals. I work on historical photos and often I use Wikipedia to get background on the subjects.

I like that the articles have links and resources at the end. Sometimes I want more than an overview.

I did take a civics class my senior year. I've heard most schools don't have that anymore.

In the last 15 -20 years, I've been amazed at how many things were either taught wrong, or just not mentioned at all, in the history classes I went to in HS and college. Labor issues, genocide of Native Americans, and more. Never heard of Huey Long until well after the movie.

I think it's gotten even worse. History classes now teach about "great Americans' like Limbaugh and Coulter instead of Thomas Jefferson.

12 to 18 years in school and know so little. It seems that the time could have been used much more constructively.

The high school I attended required one semester of civics and one of political science before you could graduate. You also had to have four years of social science. We moved to Mississippi for a short time and I was astounded at how bad their schools were. The upside of course is I was way ahead of my classmates and didn't have to put in much effort. Many times looking back, I am really grateful for the education I received, though I'm pretty sure I didn't at the time.

One of the big problems I have with most schools is they take fascinating subjects and make them boring. A lot of innovative and critical thinking gets shut down.

the problem is the curriculum, students won't learn much more than what they are given. You're absolutely right about making good subjects dull. I looked forward to science, math, music, pretty much any other class besides history. I thought our history classes were the most dull things ever, with two exceptions. In 8th grade, we spent one month on Missouri history. I lived there at the time, and recognized many of the places because I had been to them. That made it very interesting. To this day, when I travel I go to local history museums. They are always interesting and cheap.

The other class I liked was in college. Most history classes seem to start at some date, and move forward chronologically talking about everything all at once. The class I liked took 8 topics, and individually went from beginning to present. After the third topic, you would see how that related to previous topics and helped shaped their events. It was a different style, and did make it more interesting.

I had a pretty dull American history teacher, but my world history teacher was my absolute favorite teacher. He made everything so interesting and forced students to think. The next year I had him for sociology/psychology and he was even more interesting.

I know what you mean about history being taught chronologically. Most history classes were about dates, places, and names. It was primarily about memorization, not understanding. Clearly, no teacher can cover all the aspects of one subject, but a good teacher will inspire you to leave class and seek out more on your own. Everyone is really their own teacher and an effective classroom teacher will bring that out in the student.

Your college history class sounds incredible. Such teachers often stay with us throughout our entire lives.

that treat Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter as "great Americans?" I find that almost unbelievable, and would like to know of such schools specifically. Thanks.

the topic widely discussed at the time was actually the amount of influence Texas has in determining the content of school textbooks nationwide since they order so many. They proposed standards which would be far more rightwing and less "librul" than current textbooks.

I found this just now:

https://thinkprogress.org/texas-to-revise-history-textbooks-liberals-out-limbaugh-and-gingrich-in-66fb633ae500/

The Texas State Board of Education review committee is preparing to vote on a draft of proposed standards for history textbooks. Noting that the draft has “nothing about liberals,” the Houston Chronicle reported:

The first draft for proposed standards in United States History Studies Since Reconstruction says students should be expected “to identify significant conservative advocacy organizations and individuals, such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly and the Moral Majority.” […] Others have proposed adding talk show host Rush Limbaugh and the National Rifle Association.

The 15-member committee, stacked with 10 Republicans, is expected to vote along party lines. Earlier this year, a panel of right-wing “experts” produced a report urging the committee to remove biographies of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Stephen F. Austin, and César Chávez, and instead add history about the “motivational role the Bible and the Christian faith played in the settling of the original colonies.”

Never mind, then.

One semester of American history in Gulfport, Mississippi. A truly different slant on the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln. That was in 1962. It was quite unlike anything I was familiar with, having moved from the Chicago area. I was quite obnoxious in a good natured way and on February 12th, I went into history class wishing everyone a Happy Abraham Lincoln's birthday! I could get away with it because I was a girl.

Thank you for the link. Much appreciated, MM.

I think super delegates are just fine. Among other things, they assure that real Democrats get to pick the Democratic nominee.

Actually, they shouldn't even be allowed to exist because they are the revanchist bourgeois tools of the oppressive capitalist oligarchy.

Just in case:

They are incorrect.

they should vote.

In elections, with the rest of the public, and that's all. I don't think they should have an extra vote that is "super" at the convention.

Don't like the rules? Don't play the game.

you get involved with it at the local level and work to rise into a leadership position. Then, you'll be able to change what you don't like about it, perhaps.

I hadn’t put that together. Thanks.

So are Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren. So is Kamala Harris, for that matter.

Sure amazed at the lack of knowledge folks have about how our Democratic Party Delegates are chosen or, for that part,who or what a Super Delegate is.

Maybe a few more lessons are in order to remind the Public of how important State and Local Elections have major consequences on the National Stage.

I think that only the pledged delegates should be allowed to vote on the nominee. If no candidate receives a majority in the first round, then the candidate with the lowest number of delegates should be dropped and the pledged delegates should be freed to vote their consciences in successive rounds. But under no circumstances do I think super-delegates should be allowed to have a vote on the party's nominee.

I know that isn't really a popular opinion around here, but it's what I think.