Democratic Party superdelegates are undemocratic; Where's the revolt?

[Jackson]

Democratic Party superdelegates are undemocratic

(

CNN)You might think, from their title, that superdelegates are better than regular delegates.

Actually, they're worse.

It wasn't until the mid-1900s that parties embraced primary elections as part of the process for deciding on presidential candidates. But to ensure that the voters themselves didn't have all the power, in 1982 the Democratic Party adopted what are called superdelegates, who today control 15% of the final nomination process.


It's in the Democratic Party that the outsized power and lack of accountability of superdelegates is supremely, well, undemocratic.

Specifically, after the Democratic caucuses in Nevada,CNN estimatedthat Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were almost tied for pledged delegates, with 52 and 51 of them, respectively. And yet Clinton was leading by a much wider margin in the total delegate count because a whopping 445 superdelegates -- out of a total of 712 -- pledged to support her. By comparison, just 18 superdelegates pledged to support Sanders.

In other words, while Clinton and Sanders were almost perfectly split in the tally of voter-determined delegates, superdelegates threw their weight behind Clinton by an almost 25-to-1 ratio.

So here's where it gets really interesting: In the 2008 Democratic primary,by at least some measures, more people actually voted for Clinton than for Barack Obama. But because of the way pledged delegates are counted and because Obama's team led an effort early on to lock down superdelegates, the math ultimately favored Obama, and Clinton dropped out. Clinton, in turn, learned not to dismantle the superdelegate system but to better play it,hiring the architectof Obama's superdelegate strategy to marshal hers this time around.

Democratic Party superdelegates are undemocratic (opinion) - CNN.com

So, Hillary and Bernie were tied in Nevada until the Super delegates came in play and he lost the the delegate count until Hill's super delegates came into play and she received another 445 delegates that were pledged to her, not by the vote of citizens, but the party's elite.

How undemocratic is that? Realizing that she is receiving most of the 712 more delegates that the people did not vote for! Are Democrats so in the tank for the Democratic party they can't see they are being had?

 

[TNHarley]

They haven't been screwed over yet

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives hate democracy. You should admire the Democrats' primary process.

 

[Tilly]

I'm not American and didn't really understand these super delegates until a few weeks ago. How UNDEMOCRATIC can you get? I'm surprised it doesn't put people off bothering to vote. Maybe it does to some degree?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Your fake outrage on behalf of Democrats is noted.

 

[Confounding]

The parties aren't bound by democracy. If a candidate they don't like wins the primary it's within their power to deny that candidate and nominate somebody else. They get away with that because the parties aren't in the constitution; they make their own rules. It's fucking bullshit though because everybody knows the Democrat and Republican parties are the only ones that win.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The super delegate portion of the primary process actually most resembles the old way Senators were elected.

You know, the way conservatives constantly rant about wanting to return to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Democratic Party superdelegates are undemocratic

(

CNN)You might think, from their title, that superdelegates are better than regular delegates.

Actually, they're worse.

It wasn't until the mid-1900s that parties embraced primary elections as part of the process for deciding on presidential candidates. But to ensure that the voters themselves didn't have all the power, in 1982 the Democratic Party adopted what are called superdelegates, who today control 15% of the final nomination process.


It's in the Democratic Party that the outsized power and lack of accountability of superdelegates is supremely, well, undemocratic.

Specifically, after the Democratic caucuses in Nevada,CNN estimatedthat Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were almost tied for pledged delegates, with 52 and 51 of them, respectively. And yet Clinton was leading by a much wider margin in the total delegate count because a whopping 445 superdelegates -- out of a total of 712 -- pledged to support her. By comparison, just 18 superdelegates pledged to support Sanders.

In other words, while Clinton and Sanders were almost perfectly split in the tally of voter-determined delegates, superdelegates threw their weight behind Clinton by an almost 25-to-1 ratio.

So here's where it gets really interesting: In the 2008 Democratic primary,by at least some measures, more people actually voted for Clinton than for Barack Obama. But because of the way pledged delegates are counted and because Obama's team led an effort early on to lock down superdelegates, the math ultimately favored Obama, and Clinton dropped out. Clinton, in turn, learned not to dismantle the superdelegate system but to better play it,hiring the architectof Obama's superdelegate strategy to marshal hers this time around.

Democratic Party superdelegates are undemocratic (opinion) - CNN.com

So, Hillary and Bernie were tied in Nevada until the Super delegates came in play and he lost the the delegate count until Hill's super delegates came into play and she received another 445 delegates that were pledged to her, not by the vote of citizens, but the party's elite.

How undemocratic is that? Realizing that she is receiving most of the 712 more delegates that the people did not vote for! Are Democrats so in the tank for the Democratic party they can't see they are being had?

Almost all the super delegates are elected representatives of the voters of the states.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Seriously - I am asking a serious question from you democrats - help a brother out. What IS the deal with these "Superdelegates" and why the hell does she have a 3-1 margin with them? Do they wear "super delegate" costumes?

 

[Confounding]

Seriously - I am asking a serious question from you democrats - help a brother out. What IS the deal with these "Superdelegates" and why the hell does she have a 3-1 margin with them? Do they wear "super delegate" costumes?

The DNC openly admitted that super delegates exist to keep grassroots movements from taking over the party. They exist to make sure people like Bernie don't win.

 

[Billy000]

Democratic Party superdelegates are undemocratic

(

CNN)You might think, from their title, that superdelegates are better than regular delegates.

Actually, they're worse.

It wasn't until the mid-1900s that parties embraced primary elections as part of the process for deciding on presidential candidates. But to ensure that the voters themselves didn't have all the power, in 1982 the Democratic Party adopted what are called superdelegates, who today control 15% of the final nomination process.


It's in the Democratic Party that the outsized power and lack of accountability of superdelegates is supremely, well, undemocratic.

Specifically, after the Democratic caucuses in Nevada,CNN estimatedthat Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were almost tied for pledged delegates, with 52 and 51 of them, respectively. And yet Clinton was leading by a much wider margin in the total delegate count because a whopping 445 superdelegates -- out of a total of 712 -- pledged to support her. By comparison, just 18 superdelegates pledged to support Sanders.

In other words, while Clinton and Sanders were almost perfectly split in the tally of voter-determined delegates, superdelegates threw their weight behind Clinton by an almost 25-to-1 ratio.

So here's where it gets really interesting: In the 2008 Democratic primary,by at least some measures, more people actually voted for Clinton than for Barack Obama. But because of the way pledged delegates are counted and because Obama's team led an effort early on to lock down superdelegates, the math ultimately favored Obama, and Clinton dropped out. Clinton, in turn, learned not to dismantle the superdelegate system but to better play it,hiring the architectof Obama's superdelegate strategy to marshal hers this time around.

Democratic Party superdelegates are undemocratic (opinion) - CNN.com

So, Hillary and Bernie were tied in Nevada until the Super delegates came in play and he lost the the delegate count until Hill's super delegates came into play and she received another 445 delegates that were pledged to her, not by the vote of citizens, but the party's elite.

How undemocratic is that? Realizing that she is receiving most of the 712 more delegates that the people did not vote for! Are Democrats so in the tank for the Democratic party they can't see they are being had?

Yeah it is undemocratic. I'm no fan of the DNC or the awful woman running the show. However, gerrymandering is also very undemocratic and republicans are much more guilty of it than democrats. It is why they won the House and will hold onto it for years to come.

 

[TNHarley]

The parties aren't bound by democracy. If a candidate the party doesn't like wins the primary they can say no, refuse to endorse them and then pick their own candidate. They get away with that because the parties aren't in the constitution; they make their own rules. It's fucking bullshit though because everybody knows the Democrat and Republican parties are the only ones that win.

Corrupt, rigged duopoly. Gotta love it!

 

[Dale Smith]

Conservatives hate democracy. You should admire the Democrats' primary process.

You are a blithering idiot...democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing dinner plans. We were founded as a REPUBLIC which means that I have certain unalienable rights that "da gubermint" cannot take from me just because 50.01 percent decide that the other 49.99 percent cannot have them.....it's of no wonder you are a leftard....one stupid motherfucker. Why is this country so fucked up???? Because there are too many numb-fucks like you...God help us.

 

[Iceweasel]

The parties aren't bound by democracy. If a candidate they don't like wins the primary it's within their power to say no and endorse a different candidate. They get away with that because the parties aren't in the constitution; they make their own rules. It's fucking bullshit though because everybody knows the Democrat and Republican parties are the only ones that win.

There's nothing in the Constitution to prevent political parties. Why should there be? And no, Republican super delegates are not the same thing. They have a few in each state in case a candidate doesn't get enough delegate votes to win. Seems reasonable, what else should they do? Democrats can seat anyone they want, regardless.

 

[Confounding]

There's nothing in the Constitution to prevent political parties.

I know.

Why should there be?

I never suggested there should be.

And no, Republican super delegates are not the same thing.

I never said they were. I said both parties have the power to deny a candidate even though that candidate won the primary.

They have a few in each state in case a candidate doesn't get enough delegate votes to win. Seems reasonable, what else should they do? Democrats can seat anyone they want, regardless.

You sure you quoted the right person?

 

[Iceweasel]

There's nothing in the Constitution to prevent political parties.

I know.

Why should there be?

I never suggested there should be.

And no, Republican super delegates are not the same thing.

Never said they were.

They have a few in each state in case a candidate doesn't get enough delegate votes to win. Seems reasonable, what else should they do? Democrats can seat anyone they want, regardless.

You sure you quoted the right person?

Yep. You said:

"The parties aren't bound by democracy. If a candidate they don't like wins the primary it's within their power to say no and endorse a different candidate. They get away with that because the parties aren't in the constitution; they make their own rules. It's fucking bullshit though because everybody knows the Democrat and Republican parties are the only ones that win."

So you are either jerking people around or jaw dropping stupid.

 

[Confounding]

So you are either jerking people around or jaw dropping stupid.

You misinterpreted what I said.

 

[Rustic]

Conservatives hate democracy. You should admire the Democrats' primary process.

This country is supposed to be a republic not a democracy...

 

[RandallFlagg]

Seriously - I am asking a serious question from you democrats - help a brother out. What IS the deal with these "Superdelegates" and why the hell does she have a 3-1 margin with them? Do they wear "super delegate" costumes?

The DNC openly admitted that super delegates exist to keep grassroots movements from taking over the party. They exist to make sure people like Bernie don't win.

Well, I suppose that would make sense - kind of a "big picture" sort of deal. Can't have those pesky "little people" deciding their fate, now can we?

 

[bendog]

The GOP also has superdelegates, or unpledged delegates not bound to any candidate and who are delegates because of positions within the state parties. Although the GOP is normally a much less chaotic party, and has fewer