Democrats Are Considering Dropping Superdelegates Altogether

The measure would go a step beyond the Clinton-Sanders Unity Commission proposals to change the superdelegate system. An “absurd and undemocratic idea,” one DNC member said in a memo to party leaders.

Democratic officials are considering a new proposal to effectively eliminate all superdelegates, a move that would go beyond recommendations put forward late last year by the commission tasked with making the party's presidential nominating process more fair.

Under the current system for choosing a Democratic nominee, around 700 people called “superdelegates” are entitled to their own delegate to award to the candidate of their choosing, regardless of votes cast — making up about 30% of the 2,382 delegates needed to clinch the party’s nomination. These superdelegates include members of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic elected officials, and "distinguished" party leaders like former presidents and vice presidents. Superdelegates were a major point of contention during the 2016 primary — with many supporters of Bernie Sanders arguing the system unfairly favored Hillary Clinton.

-

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer...to-eliminate?utm_term=.ikoKW8dx1Y#.lvogldDb0V

Interesting to see how the Democrat party will reconcile its voters desires verses the establishments power.

Personally, I think the Democrat establishment is a hindrance to what the democrat party voters want to be.

This is an issue that will rear itself again in the next Presidential election.

 

I wonder what the DNC is up too ?

I smell refried beans.

 

Even though the DNC would never admit any of the long long longgggggggggggg list of real reasons why they lost in 2016 they are internally accepting, reviewing, and reacting to them.

 

Only think we can be sure of-there is some angle.

There's always and angle with dems.

 

Doing a little snooping and it's seems it's the radical leftist progressives, internationalist socialist and Mexican activist like the reconqista socialist who been demanding that the DNC end the superdelegates.

Maybe to many of the superdelegates were too white ?

 

Super delegates are bs and the stupid process of selling false promises to them for future election backing in direct opposition to the will of their voter base.

I agree with ending them.

 

I always snicker when they get huffy when I call it the Democrat Party.

 

The dems are going down the toilet.

 

Most likely. Which is why I wan't the far leftists to contrIol the party.

I think American voters will decide come election time whats really appropriate.

 

Agreed.

 

They don't huff and puff as much these days about that name.

But when they do you can be sure they are triggered.

 

Superdelegates are how the Democrats fix the system. I can't imagine them giving up cheating. It would be....unDemocratic of them.

 

The majority of Democrats tend to be low information or misinformed.

How many Democrats did you see up in arms when the DNC was exposed being a corrupt third world banana republic political organization ?

What was the DNC response ? They didn't clean up their act but moved even further to the left.

It was the extreme radical left with in the DNC who demanded ending the super delegates.

 

LOL all parties leadership need a mean of filtering out completely unfit candidates such as Trump unless they wish to see their party be in danger of complete destruction in a year or so as in now happening to the GOP.

 

Great point.

If the GOP had 800 Superdelegates in 2016, the could've done prevented the nomination of a D-Bag like Trump.

 

What is the point of voting Democrat when the leadership can choose the candidate they want, instead of listening to the will of the people? “Party of the People”, my a**! Superdelegates are nothing but a slap in the face to voters!

Superdelegates should have disappeared a long time ago, and the fact that they’re even thinking about ending them is a good start. However, I’m largely skeptical that this will actually lead to action. For now, they’re all talk, and considering what happened to Bernie Sanders (and the DNC’s utter disgust for non-establishment candidates), I doubt they’ll actually get rid of superdelegates.

 

And if they'd "done prevented" Trump's nomination, they may have instead chosen someone who could not defeat Hillary like Trump did.

Really, at some point, the parties need to listen to the people (via the primaries) or what is the point in having primaries anyhow?

Trump wasn't my first choice (although I can't vote in the primaries anyhow in my state because I'm an independent) but the people spoke, and what do you know, they ended up choosing the candidate who could beat Hillary, thank goodness.

It's typical of the hubris of the current Democrat Party to think they know more than their own party members, or that their own primary voters are such low information fools they must be led in the right direction. Here dear, you think you like that candidate, but really this other one is better, trust us....

Sometimes the establishment is best off listening to the people, or moving out of the way.

 

The Sanders fiasco was for the Dems what Ron Paul was for the Pubs. Trump was largely elected as a result of conservative resentment toward the elitism built into the conservative establishment that resulted in the will of the voters being largely disregarded. Now the liberals have seen it too. I have hope that their next presidential win will be another foundational blow to the establishment as Trump has been, possibly even one I could stomach 'switching parties' for.

The cons have generally and increasingly rejected their 'neocon' extremists. Now the libs have to reject their 'progressive' extremist counterparts so We The People can more effectively come together in the compromise that our Democratic Republic relies upon to function.

 

I guess it boils down to whether the party wants to be more democratic or more Democratic.

Look at what those idiots did to themselves in 2016. They let some commie moonbat from outside the party run against one of the preeminent establishment figures in their party.

Is it any wonder that this led to the train wreck that played out before the eyes of the entire country?

What a fiasco...

 

First the will of GOP voters are not one and the same as the will of those who trend to vote in primaries.

Second if Hillary had won the election due to a GOP qualify candidate being rejected for her instead of Trump the harm to the GOP is likely to had been far less then what is happening now.

Next the founders was never in love with the wisdom of the people that why we have an electoral college in the first place and the will of the American people was that Hillary should be President in any case.

Oh well in my opinion if the GOP go the way of the Federal party due to the leadership of that party not blocking Trump I am of the opinion that the nation will be far better off.

 

Good for them. I am sure they voters will appreciate it. Which is probably a rarity.
I have noticed both main parties let down their voters more than make them happy.

 

The superdelegate system fits the Dems' basic philosophy: they want a democratic process so the "little guy" has a say. But in the end, they want elites to ultimately make the final decisions.

That's how libs roll.

 

Yet, the Democratic Party's filtering mechanism failed spectacularly. It enabled a completely unfit candidate like Hillary Clinton to finish the destruction that began with the Great Shellacking of 2010.

Furthermore, that filtering mechanism failed to keep someone who wasn't even a Democrat to run for the party's nomination which led to the epic fiasco at the national convention.

The more I think about it, the more I think Democrats could do without a filtering mechanism that failed them not once but twice in 2016. Instead of maintaining party order and harmony it produced chaos, conflict and ultimately defeat.

What a debacle...

 

LMAO - that is soooooo true...