The "Democratic" Party's Undemocratic Superdelegates

So in the old days, the party members themselves chose the candidates with no say from the people - you either like the person they choose, or you vote for the other party's candidate.

Like the Republicans, they eventually got primaries. But not *quite*. The Democratic party maintains "Superdelegates" - delegates who are independent and vote for whoever they want to be the candidate. The people get no say in how these delegates vote.

712 of the 4763 delegates of the Democratic party are superdelegates. The # of delegates required to get the nomination is 2382. If one were to get all 712 superdelegates to vote for them, you would only need to win 1670 delegates from voters, whereas your opponent has to win all 2382 - 43% more!

Of the superdelegates that have pledged themselves so far (though they do not actually vote until after the primaries when all the delegates vote), 98% have pledged to Clinton. Assuming they don't change their minds, that's 360 delegates that Bernie Sanders has to make up for with the popular vote (each super delegate's vote is worth about 10000 people). Since it's unlikely the remaining superdelegates will even split evenly between the two, Sanders will not be able to win the nomination unless he defeats Clinton convincingly in primaries; close votes will simply allow the superdelegates to give Hillary the win.

This is absurd, elitist bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and unfortunately, I don't see how you'd get rid of this system, unless the voters literally punish the Democratic Party by voting en masse for Trump if the superdelegates screw them over.

 

So, it is not as messed up as it was say 7 years ago,however,those are the rules the candidates agreed to this election cycle--Now, if you are a Bernie supporter,I say this----Perhaps if Bernie were a Democrat,he (then) you would have understood how the Superdelicate system works---to whine now just shows the lack of educating ones self on the Democratic process----AND, if any of you remember in 2008,how the vote between OBAMA & Hillary came down to pretty much the Superdelicates----just saying----

 

Perhaps you don't remember that we are talking about private political groups, free to associate and create their own rules. In their own enlighten self interest, when they transitioned from simple appointment by party bosses to the present semi-democratic process, the Party wanted to retain some control over who eventually represented their party. It was a hard won lesson from McGovern in 1972 which demonstrated what happens when the party looses all control....you get a Donald Trump.

 

If the US didn't use first-past the post voting it wouldn't be an issue, you could literally just form another political party. But the US, unlike Britain and Canada, realizes implicitly that if you have first past the post, you can't have more than two candidates or the election will likely be unfair.

Until the US adopts SVT or proportional voting, we have to treat the parties as public rather than private entities. I AGREE with you, but only if the voting system fairly facilitates more than two parties.

 

The majority of Democrats do want Hillary to the the Party's Presidential Nominee.

 

I believe we are in violent agreement. I will point out that 2 party rule is a rather convienent illusion. As I recall, my last Presidential ballot has no less than 9 candidates on the menu. Just because only two were politically viable does not necessarily say we have legal barriers to dictate what large parties may do compared to very small parties or even individuals. I have to say I would very uncomfortable with legislation that dictated to the parties what their internal policies should be.

 

Agreed,especially since Hillary is the only Democrat running!!!!That being said,even if Bernie were a Democrat,Hillary is still my choice.
As a note,I was watching MSNBC this morning,they were interviewing Bernie volunteers in S Carolina,question asked " why are you supporting Bernie" Answer " Bernie is the only candidate running that will build on the ACA,Bernie is the only candidate running for equal pay" Both are untrue.Bernie wants to start over with the health care debate & go for single payer, Hillary is the one that wants to build on OBAMACARE & Hillary has always been for equal pay---Hey,I say,keep it honest folks---
The Hillary campaign held an event here in Carson City,Nevada,where they had Cecille Richards from Planned Parenthood come to speak,the Hillary campaign office is right around the corner from our local Democratic Headquarters-a Bernie campaign person came into the Hq's & asked Why the Bernie campaign wasn't invited,well, my answer was pretty simple, I said " this is a Hillary campaign event, all Democrats are welcome,but why would the the Hillary campaign notify the Bernie campaign about one of their events". I just scratched my head,as after being around Democratic campaigns for nearly 10 years now,seeing how inexperienced the Bernie campaign people are about their understanding of how a Democratic campaign is run,just shows me that Bernie is not a Democrat & if he becomes POTUS,he will not govern as a Democrat.

 

this is true. if you guys dont like how the democrat party works maybe you should vote for trump instead

 

Doesn't stop the fact that each candidate signs the election agreement rules---------And---- not a chance on voting Republican Ever------just saying------

 

thats fine hes halfway democrat anyway.

 

Yeah,just like Cruz saying he is eligible to run for POTUS,you can't be born in 2 different countries at the same time---speaking of not following the Constitution----- It's the SOIL man,Oh,this election is a hoot!

 

It is also a double edged sword. Hillary already has enough trouble in regards to getting support from the young vote, and if Sanders were screwed out of the nomination via super delegates, surely they would not turn out for her and many would even vote against her. Without the young vote, Hillary would be very unlikely to win the general.

 

You use the words "screwed out of"----- I disagree completely with those words----Bernie knew the Democratic rules he signed & agreed upon,he should educate his campaign on the Democratic rules---Bernie is not & will not be screwed out of anything,if he is not willing to follow the Democratic rules,he should drop out now or perhaps he should have run as an Independent to begin with----
And-we have had 2 states vote so far & just after 2 states we have people determining what the rest of the country thinks---we have a long way to go folks,how about keeping the fear mongering in check for awhile------just saying----

 

The "Democratic" Party's Undemocratic Superdelegates

Well after all it is their party and their rules. If the sheep making up the rank and file DNC party like it then that is their choice

 

Call it whatever you want, the meaning doesn't change one iota. The doubled edged sword to this for the Democrat Party is that they would still be able to have their preferred candidate nominated, but on the other hand, they would very likely alienate a significant chunk of Sanders voters from voting in the general election, and some of them would even end up voting AGAINST their hand chosen candidate. I am not saying that the Democrat Party doesn't have the right to utilize super delegates, I am saying that utilizing them to overturn the popular vote could ultimately hold great peril for them in the general election, hence my characterization of it being a double edged sword. I also think you are missing the notion that it wouldn't be Bernie Sanders whom Democrats would have to worry about offending, it would be his voters.

I am not fear mongering, rather I am responding in a thread that discusses the possibility of super delegates being the deciding factor that gives the nomination to a candidate that didn't win the most votes because "the party" decides that is whom they want to run. Discussing that potential outcome isn't fear mongering in any manner, shape, or form----- just saying-----

 

I think Sanders knows how Superdelegates work. It's just a crony ass system, and WAS a crony system back in 2008. I was an Obama supporter largely because of railing against big interests, big cronyist and that dribbles down to politics. I'm still the same guy, even if with a different political approach..

It's just super blatant because the DNC is running this election like how the Soviets ran the Iron Curtain.