DNC Chair backs plan to effectively eliminate key role of 'super delegates' in nomination process

[progressoid]

DNC Chairman Tom Perez is endorsing the proposal ahead of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee’s Friday meeting, which is expected to cover the role of super delegates — the more than 700 elected officials and party leaders who are free to support the presidential candidate they wish at the Democratic National Convention.

...

Taking an initial step, the DNC voted in March to accept a committee report calling for reducing the influence of superdelegates, among other changes.

Other proposals under consideration would limit the role of those superdelegates who aren’t elected officials or distinguished party leaders.

But the proposal Perez is endorsing goes much further, blocking all superdelegates — including elected officials and even former presidents — from voting on the first presidential nominating ballot at the convention. That means, the first – and likely only -- tally of votes would represent only the will of voters, according to the DNC official.

In the unlikely event that the nominating contest proceeds to a second ballot, all delegates, including super delegates, would be eligible to formally pledge their support for any candidate and cast their ballots accordingly, the DNC official said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/06/plan-effectively-eliminate-key-role-super-delegates-gains-steam/674970002/

[RandySF]

1. The DNC should table this discussion until November

But I would be open to eliminating superdelegates along with getting rid of caucuses.

[Blue_true]

15. I agree with that. Also get rid of open primaries.

And work with each state to publicize their registration deadlines.

[Demsrule86]

25. We need winner take all primaries if we eliminate supers.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

2. Could be a good 1st step to total elimination of not-so-super super delegates.

[grantcart]

3. Yes let's make all our elected Congressional representatives, senators and Governors grovel to go to

The convention.

They will and replace regular folks who had a chance to go to the convention

Super idea.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

5. Yes... thanks!

[grantcart]

47. so they go the conventional route and less regular party members will have a chance to go

Let me guess, you don't really understand the convention system and have never been a delegate at a county, state, or national level.

[Gothmog]

6. No, the super delegates are add ons

Super delegates do not reduce the allocation of delegates to the convention. States who win a number of congressional and senate seats are rewarded for having extra members in congress.

[Blue_true]

17. The idea of getting rid of super delegates is a non starter.

If that happens, the Democratic Party will lose it's base African American voters and wil be as good as dead. Perez' idea is sound, hold super delegates out of the first vote. Personally, if no candidate can win on the first ballot, that says that democratic voters can accept whoever is picked as the nominee on the second ballot.

[grantcart]

46. Exactly my point, which you didn't get

The hundreds of elected Democratic office holders, Representatives, Senators, Governors and so on will now have to go and get added either at state conventions or get on slates of ballots and when they do so they will replace hundreds of regular joes that now fill those seats.

The fact that you framed it the way that you do shows that you don't understand that giving important leaders SD seats opens up the general seats to regular party members that wouldn't normally have a chance to go.

[LiberalFighter]

41. Yep! That would be a great idea. Sarcasm.

That was one of the key reasons they went with super delegates years ago.

[Gothmog]

4. E-mail from the former chair of California Democratic Party gives me hope

This e-mail to members of the DNC gives me hope that this rule will be defeated https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/06/08/dnc-considers-reform-that-would-block-superdelegates-from-voting-on-first-presidential-ballot/?utm_term=.43b0d93edf1e

But every idea for curtailing superdelegate power has been angrily opposed by a rump of Democratic Party leaders. Bob Mulholland, a pugnacious former California party chairman and current DNC member, included reporters on an email he sent to the chairs of the Rules and Bylaws Committee and addressed to Perez and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the DNC’s vice chair.

“The two of you are conspiring with Bernie Sanders to block Congress members John Lewis, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee and the rest of the congressional delegation, Governors, State Party Chairs and the rest of us DNC Members from entering our Convention floor in 2020 as voters,” Mulholland wrote. “I don’t know if you will have paid thugs at the doorways to beat up Congressman Lewis and the rest of us or not.”

To emphasize his point, Mulholland attached a photo of police beating Lewis at the 1965 march for voting rights in Selma, Ala.

[progressoid]

8. Wait, wut?

To emphasize his point, Mulholland attached a photo of police beating Lewis at the 1965 march for voting rights in Selma, Ala.

So he's comparing what was done to Lewis in 1965 to reducing the role of super delegates?

Wow, looks like Mulholland still has it out for Keith Ellis.

[Gothmog]

11. Are you referring to Keith Ellison?

Wow, looks like Mulholland still has it out for Keith Ellis.

I have some great pictures from the National Convention of Keith Ellison, John Lewis and Kareem Abdul Jabbar on a panel.

[progressoid]

61. Yeah, Ellison (smart phone error).

It's no secret that Mulholland really dislike Ellison.

Which makes it even weirder that he would play the race card. Did he not notice that the DNC chair is Latino and deputy chair is Black? I can only surmise that he's still holding some sort of grudge.

[radius777]

7. This is a good plan,

as it will be the voters' delegates who will vote on first ballot, and in the rare case it goes to 2nd ballot, then superdelegates voting is probably good idea, as it ensures that respected leaders will have a role in selecting the nominee, not just state party types that most of the regular delegates tend to be, who iirc are not bound to vote how the voters voted on the 2nd ballot.

We also need to get rid of caucuses(dominated by activists) and open primaries(which is vulnerable to ratfucking) and go only to closed primaries, with early voting. This would allow a broad section of rank and file Democratic voters to choose the Democratic nominee... the way it should be.

[Kentonio]

9. Long overdue.

[dawg]

10. I like this.

It preserves a role for the super delegates while eliminating their potential to thwart the will of a majority of primary voters.

[NCTraveler]

12. I think this is a poor idea....

When it comes to party building which is a big deal.

Outside of that it holds little significance.

[LostOne4Ever]

13. Good!

The system was broken and NEEDED repair. It allowed for a candidate to have hundreds of SDs before a single vote was cast and for the SD to ignore the vote of their state as Alan Greyson and many many more did.

Party insiders were given more voice than the average primary voter. That isn’t how the Democratic Party should be. And by the same logic caucuses need to go too!

Regardless, While I support this I think an even better solution would be to decide our candidate by direct vote of the party. One vote one person. 100% representation equal to everyone. We have the technology for it!

[Demsrule86]

21. The system is fine. Only one candidate ever complained about it... Pres. Obama ran and won ...

[LostOne4Ever]

26. The system is broken

No-one should have hundreds of delegates before a single vote has been cast. Delegates should not be able to vote for a candidate when their state went overwhelmingly for another candidate.

And only democrats have ever complained about their candidate losing the general election while winning the popular vote. By the logic you are using the electoral college is fine.

The fact that there is enough pressure that they are making this change is proof that it is not working as it should. It NEEDS to be changed. Again I would prefer a direct vote but this is an acceptable compromise to me.

What type of compromise solution would you offer? Something that addresses these concerns,

[Demsrule86]

32. What the hell are you talking about? Supers vote for the person who wins the primary ...not with

their states. These are not the elected delegates. Do you understand how it works?

[LostOne4Ever]

34. I understand how it works

SDs come from presidents, state officials, and high ranking democrats from the DNC and DPL.

And they are able to vote for whoever they want (why they are also called unbound delegates). Even if the state that got them that position vote differently than them.

It is literally a way for the party leadership to get extra sway over the nominee should they disagree with the people of the party. That is it’s purpose, to stop or slow down grassroots nominees the party feels can’t win.

And that is also the problem! They think they know better than the people of the party and are weakening their vote.

[Demsrule86]

23. There was a clear winner in 16...thus I fail to see how this does anything but cause a potential

food fight between two or more candidates.

[LostOne4Ever]

27. And 2016 caused a huge rift in the party

Having a clear winner without feeling like the election was determined by elites in the party who don’t care about your input on your own party will cause less friction.


Cause it would be determined by the people of the party.

[Demsrule86]

31. Oh please...that was always crap...some couldn't support the Democratic nominee after

all the bitterness...it would be no different if the primary was close without supers.It is hard when your candidate loses...I was a deaniac so I get it.. Without supers .there would be a food fight most years and that would hurt our chances in the general. We need supers to stop that. Candidates win or lose in primaries...our job is to vote for Democrats in the general period...or you lose everything those FDR Democrats (it has been almost 100 years people) whatever the hell that means champion.

[LostOne4Ever]

37. Some of them were just petty losers

Last edited Fri Jun 8, 2018, 11:28 PM - Edit history (1)

However others felt the system was rigged and refused to vote for the Dems for that reason.

I was for dean too. But he actually had a SD advantage at first. That said, he didn’t have 400+ delegates pledged for him before a single vote was cast.

There is a food fight every time there is no real incumbent anyway, and sometime there is a food fight even if there is an incumbent.

We need to just count the votes to stop it. 2016 just proved that the supers just cause more animosity, not less.

[Demsrule86]

38. I call bullshit... This never happened before 2016 . Supers are

important and I am against getting rid of them. The election was not rigged so I don't wish to cater to such nonsense. If you get rid of supers, it will affect participation of minority voters which is why the Black caucus is against it. This will hurt us for more than a few malcontents whining because they didn't get a certain candidate. Without POC, we have no party.

[LostOne4Ever]

43. If you are worried about minority representation then you should be for a primary by direct vote

Literally every one would get a vote directly equal to their representation. It would solve their concerns as well as make it where everyone in the party gets an equal voice.

We have the technology for this, it would solve the Black Caucuses concern AND let the people decide. Everyone gets what they want.

[Demsrule86]

49. I deal in the possible...not the unlikely or the 'it will never happen" And mark my words if they

change supers, we will not win in 20.

[shanny]

52. If we change supers we will not win in 20.

We didn't win this time, or didn't you notice?

[Demsrule86]

53. Yeah, but it wasn't because of supers...the left left green slime, Jill fucking Stein

and the Russians...but if we lose Black vote, it won't matter who runs.

[shanny]

54. Don't forget Comey! And Susan Sarandon!

And republican vote suppression / voter ID laws and outright cheating!

There are so many more it is impossible to keep up. IMO the answer is much simpler--but you will never, ever get it.

Bye.

[Demsrule86]

55. Agree on all but Stein took enough votes to put Hillary over the top in key states...which she

campaigned in by the way...and I don't doubt the Russian princess is involved with Russia ...my dream is to see her rocking an orange jumpsuit.

[shanny]

56. reminds me of NaderNaderNader! after Florida 2000

despite:

--SoS Katherine Harris purging voter rolls
--the infamous butterfly ballot resulting in 4000 votes for Buchanan
--200,000+ registered Democrats voting for Bush
--the fucking Supreme Court of the United States stopping the recount and awarding Florida, and the election to Bush (especially since recounts done by private parties afterwards show Gore won)

STILL, somehow it is all Nader's fault and the 75,000 people who voted for him, only 24,000 or so of them Democrats. Here's a pro tip: 24,000 is less than 200,000.



And now you just can't resist doing it again. Way to win allies and influence people. Did you ever consider that this is at least part of the answer to 1000 lost state leg seats, 2/3 lost governorships, a lost Senate, House and now White House and Supreme Court?

[Demsrule86]

40. 2016 was determined by the voters...elites played no role... the Democratic nominee

Hillary Clinton became the nominee because she was the winner of the primary and won the popular vote in the general...hell she won the election period not shitler.

[LostOne4Ever]

44. Elites played a very big role

She was made out to be the heir apparent from the day the media started covering the primary and the 400+ delegates made that it seem that way even more so.

It is like the Republicans saying the Russians had no effect on the vote. There is no way of knowing how much it affected the vote.

And if everything you are saying is true, that the super delegates always vote for the winner, then removing them would have no effect other than to get rid of the appearance of bias.

[Demsrule86]

48. This is true when Obama ran as well...she was considered inevitable...but he still won...good

candidates will win. People we support lose elections. Supers do vote for the winner...but we have threshold ...a number a candidate must reach in order to get the nominatination which is what I think this is about. Those who don't think their candidate can win outright want it thrown to a second vote so they can choose the nominee against the wishes of the electorate...back to the smoke filled room...you see supers put the winning candidate over the top...if neither reached the threshold, then supers put the winning candidate over the top. Under the new super rules this would go to a second vote. I believe this would cause division and trouble the general...it is just stupid to open ourselves up to this. If we go to a new supers system, we will need to end caucuses and have winner take all primaries to make sure the winning candidate meets the threshold. Or we could add enough points to put them over if the have won the primary even by a single votes... which is unlikely I know.

[Demsrule86]

24. That is completely untrue...the supers always vote with the winners of the primaries...

And no other candidate ever complained about it. In 16, the winner of the primaries was the candidate just like in 08 and 04 ...and on and on.

[LostOne4Ever]

28. No they haven't.

Alan Greyson voted for Sanders when Florida went to Clinton:

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/203092-alan-grayson-throws-endorsement-super-delegate-vote-to-bernie-sanders

Several super delegates in Sanders states went Clinton. Here for example:

https://www.news8000.com/news/regional-news/wisconsin-news/kind-to-vote-for-clinton-as-superdelegate-despite-primary-results/169255173

[Demsrule86]

30. your post doesn't make sense.

Clinton was the winner if you recall. Supers have nothing to do with states.

[LostOne4Ever]

33. Among the other sources Super delegates are made from state officials

Governors, senators, representatives, etc...

Alan Greyson was a SD because he was a Florida Representative for example.

And they were able to ignore their own state primary result.

[Demsrule86]

35. Supers vote with the winner of the primary regardless of their states...

Greyson votes for the winner of the primary as he should.He is not an elected delegate...supers vote for the primary winner. In fact at that point everyone should have voted unanimously for the winner...now state delegates are elected and are counted in the number of delegates awarded to a candidate. but when there is a clear winner a sign of unity is to vote for the person who will be the Democratic candidate. Greyson's was not counted as as delegate for Florida...a certain candidate was awarded whatever number Florida gets in terms of delegates, supers from the state are not part of that count.

[LostOne4Ever]

42. Greyson voted for Sanders as did 43.5* other super delegates

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

He became a superdelegate because he was a Florida state representative. Yes he could vote however he wanted, and that is the problem! His vote could (and technically did) go against the will of democratic voters as a whole. Both on The state and national level.

For the record, To win the nomination one needs 2,382 delegates. Clinton had ~2272. So there was no clear winner till they (SDs) put her over the top. Bernie got 44.5, O’Mallery got 1, and she got 570.5.

*The point five being the result of democrats abroad who only get half a vote.

[Demsrule86]

50. His vote is not counted in the votes awarded to the nominee from Florida.

[Demsrule86]

36. Let me clear...supers do not vote for the states where they come from...They can but don't have to.

Supers are not counted in the number of delegates awarded to a primary winner...They vote for the person who has won the primary. Greyson was under no obligation.

[Blue_true]

14. I think the proposal is fair.

If two candidates are tied after the first ballot, that means democratic voters are ok with either, at that point true party loyalists and elected officials should have a say. I would hope that the two tied cabdidates would ask for a delay of the second vote, meet and form a unity ticket for November, then come back and unimously endorse the one at the top of that ticket.

[mythology]

18. I would assume it would be more likely that instead of a tie

you'd have have nobody getting 50%+1, with 3 or more candidates having delegates at the convention.

[Blue_true]

20. In that case, party leaders SHOULD step in and break the logjam. nt

[Demsrule86]

22. The problem is that unless they remove the threshold for winning...you could get candidate who are

not tied but a situation where a clear winner has not achieved enough delegates to push him/her over the top...then we could have a food fight on the floor which would doom us in the general. If we do this, we need to eliminate caucuses and have winner take all primaries.

[Demsrule86]

51. It is not fair to minority voters the backbone of our party and will cost us their support.

[Blue_true]

57. My experience with minority voters.

Unlike the far left, minority voters won't cut their own throats and the throats of allies because they didn't get everything that they wanted.

My guess, Perez put out the idea and will consult with key Democratic Party constituencies to properly shape it, before implementing it. He is not like a couple of people that always set demands, with no choice but the one they want being acceptable.

[Demsrule86]

58. I still doubt it will happen. Hope not...and depressing the Black vote will cause us to lose.

[mcar]

16. Bad move

[Blue_true]

19. I don't think so. The best candidate should win on the first ballot, selected by voters.

Party leaders should then have a big say if voters are split.

[Garrett78]

29. I don't see this having any impact on the results. Now, can we talk about doing away with caucuses?

[aikoaiko]

39. Super delegates need to go, but I'll take this step as a good move.

[ecstatic]

45. Seriously? We do this after trump? Really?!

I wish they'd focus on the movement to get rid of the electoral college. A lot of repubs are for that too.

[Gothmog]

59. From my twitter feed

Link to tweet

[progressoid]

60. Well the first two demands are a no-go.

Good luck telling all 50 states, and the territories that they don't get to decide what system they want to use to pick their candidates.