We need to demand that superdelegates pledge to vote for the popular winner.

[reformist2]

And then we need to get rid of them from the party nomination process, forever.

Superdelegates make a mockery of the very name of the "Democratic" Party.

[hollysmom]

1. taht would defeat their purpose, wouldn't it?

Debbie W-S seems to indicate that it is to keep the candidate those on the inside want, the political elite.

[bigtree]

2. why?

...they will invariably line up behind their states' results, presumably the winner of the primary.

[livetohike]

3. Really? Why is this suddenly an issue? It's not like it just became part

if the process in 2016.

[Yog-Sothoth]

4. Ridiculous

Superdelegates were specifically designed to pick whoever they want despite the popular vote...to do things like protect the party and country against radicals/scandal/whatever they feel like which might not be reflected in the more isolated universe of Democratic primary voters that would be important for the general election.

Parties design their various nomination rules to win the general election.

[img][/img]

[Oilwellian]

8. Super delegates have never voted against the majority vote

It would be the death of the party and totally insane. Our party can't have a small group of lobbyists and elites, choosing our nominee for us. That is NOT democracy.

[Yog-Sothoth]

11. Deal with it.

Superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. Right now it appears they are choosing well as Clinton has a 45-To-1 advantage over Sanders as she is the superior candidate:
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/13/455812702/clinton-has-45-to-1-superdelegate-advantage-over-sanders

There is no reason to expect they will be the deciding factor as most of the party is behind Clinton despite the grumblings of Sanders supporters.

Superdelegates are simply part of the winning number of delegates Clinton will be receiving on her way to be our next POTUS.

However if it were neck and neck up to a bitter end then they can and should still vote for whoever they want which would be Clinton. Sanders has no room to complain.

Superdelegates are designed in part to moderate against radicals and it's not like he's running in his fictional Democratic-Socialist party where there are no superdelegates. He's running and pretending to be a Democrat, which he isn't, specifically in order to get their money, their hundreds of Super PACs and hundreds of millions which can and will be used in a GE, and to benefit from the organization of their party to which he doesn't legitimately belong.

He will deal with their rules and if he will actually steal the Democratic party then he will have to try very hard.

[Petrushka]

5. Petition --->

http://pac.petitions.moveon.org/sign/tell-the-democratic-superdel?source=s.fb&r_by=438852

[reformist2]

9. Wow, I'm thrilled there's already a petition to help make this happen!

[kenn3d]

6. Outraged by superdelegates who are not bound by voting results, supporters are now fighting back.

https://www.uspolitics.news/2016/02/15/news/2016-elections/bernie-sanders-supporters-petition-superdelegtes/2599 … @uspoliticsnews2
Please Sign petition: http://bit.ly/superdelegates

[Tarc]

7. This is how the Democratic Party works.

and it is how it has worked for years. But Clinton does not need the super-Ds to win anyways, seeing how she is going to take 10 of 12 states on Super Tuesday, which will pretty much wrap this show up.

[kenfrequed]

10. We need to end superdelegates

Too many corporate lobbyists have slitered into the position of being superdelegates.

Corporations should not have extra magic votes over the people in our party.

[Chichiri]

12. No, we really don't.

Superdelegates are the only firewall we have against voter fraud, late-breaking scandal, and -- oh, you're really going to hate me for this part, but it's true -- populist extremism.

We could close our primaries, and that would help with the voter fraud. We could be much more selective about who we allow on the ticket (to the extent of, say, not letting Democrats on), and that would help with the populist extremism. But suppose, a week before the convention, the presumptive nominee was discovered to have mass murdered hundreds of people in Burkina Faso? If enough of the nominee's delegates didn't believe the scandal, or didn't care, that person would still get most of the delegates. Republicans, who don't have superdelegates as we do, would be screwed. We probably would not.

[themaguffin]

13. you mean like they do already?

[AtomicKitten]

14. The lobbyist superdelegates are not going to kowtow to demands. Their agenda is clear.

If the SS Clinton steals the nomination by virtue of superdelegates, she will lose the general election. That's not a guess nor is it a threat. It's common sense. The voters Bernie is amassing will not take kindly to such smoke-filled backroom thumb-on-the-scale intervention. No petitions or arguments based in logic will change that paradigm.

[dlwickham]

15. You can Tad Devine for the superdelegates idea

He helped create them