Should Super Delegates overrule the people (popular vote) ?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	No
	21 (95%)
	Yes
	1 (5%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[leftofcool]

1. They won't have to. Hillary will have more than enough pledged delegates for the win.

[morningfog]

4. You think Hillary will reach 2,383 pledged delegates?

[Betty Karlson]

6. Which implies that the fix is in, in case Sanders does overtake her after all.

WOW!

[MohRokTah]

10. There is no way for Sanders to overtake her.

He just doesn't have the math to do so.

[Marr]

11. I think you misunderstand the word 'math'.

The path to victory for Sanders is slimmer than it was 48 hours ago, but it is there. It's still perfectly possible for him to secure enough delegates to take the nomination. Saying he 'doesn't have the math' or that there is 'no way for him to overtake her' suggests it's just mathematically impossible. It is not.

[MohRokTah]

14. To take a mere 50% +1 pledged delegates, Sanders would have to get a blowout victory...

in EVERY one of the remaining 29 states.

We talking two to one margins in EVERY remaining state.

29 record blowouts.

Yeah, good luck with that. Miss a record blowout in a single state and you've failed.

[MadBadger]

23. He doesnt have a realistic path though technically he does have a path.

He's not John Kasich.

[brooklynite]

26. I understand the word 'math' and I understand the word 'data'...

For example, math says it is entirely possible that Bernie Sanders will win Wisconsin.

However, data says that among voting midwest States, Sanders had a small win in Michigan, a small loss in Illinois and a big loss in Ohio. That pattern does not suggest a strong performance in Wisconsin is likely (538's model says he has to win 56 / 44).

Data also says that the latest polls have Sanders up by only 1%.

[Betty Karlson]

12. But the fix is in in case he unexpectedly does?

I see you don't want to answer that...

[MohRokTah]

16. He won't.

It is impossible.

[Betty Karlson]

17. Still trying to deflect from the tacit admission that you guys are ready to fix the convention.

[MohRokTah]

22. There has been no such admission.

Hillary Clinton has already clinched the popular vote and the pledged delegates. Bernie Sanders could have Minnesota like results in every remaining state (29 total) and Hillary Clinton would still have more popular votes and a majority of pledged delegates. There's nothing else to argue.

[Betty Karlson]

39. See reply #1: "the superdelegates won't have to (overrule), because..."

This implies that they would have to if the circumstances were different!

[MohRokTah]

45. I want the super delegates there.

I WANT them to be able to overrule if the unthinkable happens.

What do we do if by some weird fate it came out that Hillary sold secrets to Putin?

I know I would want the Super Delegates to overrule the voters and nominate Sanders under that scenario.

Super Delegates are a final firewall in the vetting process. I want that bit of insurance.

[Betty Karlson]

50. Thanks, but reply # 1 implied that "the unthinkable would happen"

if Sanders pulled ahead of Clinton. That is sort of the point.

[MohRokTah]

53. Sanders pulling ahead of Hillary is not the "unthinkable"

It's impossible.

[Betty Karlson]

60. Sometimes I feel I might as well try to speak to a wall.

The point is not whether a Sanders win is possible or impossible.

The point is whether superdelegates were ready to deny him the nomination anyway. And the tacit admission of reply #1 was that they were!

[MohRokTah]

63. I recommend a redial math course for you.

Pay attention to division as that is how percentages are derived.

[Betty Karlson]

64. This is not a matter of math, but of semantics!

But clearly, you only want to debate numbers. And I am sure your next reply will be about numbers too. Which renders your entire argument an effort to deflect from the discussion - which was about superdelegate intentions.

[MohRokTah]

69. No, it's all about numbers.

Without the numbers, you lose.

[Betty Karlson]

71. Tone-deaf and / or deliberately obtuse.

[MohRokTah]

73. Thank you for admitting your shortcomings. eom

[Betty Karlson]

75. wow. All I can say is: that response was worthy of you.

[Lizzie Poppet]

74. I think we're wasting our time.

Who'd have thought there would be someone posting here that actually has no idea what the term "impossible" means.

I don't know whether to knock my head against the desk or just fall over laughing.

[Betty Karlson]

77. Know what: you do the laughing, I'll knock my head on the desk.

I think I just wasted a few minutes of my life.

[Lizzie Poppet]

68. "redial"

LOL

Oh, and you're the last person in this thread to be criticizing anyone's math. Or English, since the definition of "impossible" seems to have escaped you...

[MohRokTah]

72. Autocorrect on iPads sucks.

[Lizzie Poppet]

76. Apologies. I was taking after your colleague, below.

Two wrongs don't make a right...

But still no admission you screwed up by claiming a Sanders win is "impossible?" Happy to copypaste the definition...and provide further explanation, if needed.

[Rose Siding]

42. Why would anyone think we have the influence to put the fix in on anything?

If we could, we must be really bad at it since there is still a race going on.

[MADem]

24. What is tacid? nt

[Betty Karlson]

40. silent, unspoken

[MADem]

49. OH--you mean tacit!!!

tac·it
ˈtasət/
adjective
understood or implied without being stated.
"your silence may be taken to mean tacit agreement"
synonyms: implicit, understood, implied, hinted, suggested; More

https://www.google.com/#q=tacit


I thought "tacid" might be some sort of buzzword that the kids are using, these days.

[Betty Karlson]

52. Oh, bugger! Typing error.

I'll fix it!

[MADem]

62. LOL @ "fic!" nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. "impossible"

[MohRokTah]

28. Yes, impossible.

If Sanders won every remaining state by Minnesota like margins, Hillary Clinton would still take a majority of the popular vote and a majority of the pledged delegates. That's 29 states total.

It's a done deal.

[Scootaloo]

46. Then why do her supporters keep punching down?

Either he's still viable, and you guys have to keep trying to sink him and discourage voters... or he's not, and you guys are just tryign to destroy him and alienate the left wholly.

[Lizzie Poppet]

48. *snicker* You struggle with math, don't you?

Pledged delegates:

Clinton: 1139
Sanders: 825
Available: 2308

Total delegates needed to win: 2383

How's that foot taste?

Second try: improbable =/= impossible

[MohRokTah]

61. Your numbers are incorrect.

2382 to secure the nomination and that includes Super Delegates. If you are going with that number, then Sanders needs 74% of all remaining delegates and the count is currently 1606 to 851.

Math, because it matters.

[Lizzie Poppet]

65. Nope.

I already noted that the 2382 figure was for total delegates, and showed the pledged delegates because they're the only ones actually locked in. That's all that matters at this point because until the leader in pledged delegates going into the convention is determined, they're up for grabs.

Not that this is at all relevant to the matter of your silly "impossible" claim. Even including superdelegates, Sanders isn't mathematically eliminated. That 74% figure has no bearing, obviously, on whether or not a Sanders victory is "impossible." It isn't. Man (or woman) the fuck up and admit you were wrong.

Or don't. No problem. Math's not for everyone.

[MohRokTah]

67. Super Delegates count when calculating total needed to nominate

Otherwise Obama would not have secured the nomination on June 3.

The more important number would be 2026 or half the pledged delegates. The argument being that whoever gets half the pledged delegates will secure the nomination after that number is met.

Sanders now needs 58% of all remaining delegates to reach that number which requires blowouts of nearly two to one votes in all of the remaining states.

Ironically, that is now the threshold of delegates Hillary needs to reach 2382 pledged delegates for an outright win.

Either way, you are not doing the math correctly.

[Lizzie Poppet]

70. This is hilarious. You're still completely missing the point.

Leaving aside the fact that there's nothing wrong with my math, you still don't see where you fucked up: it's not impossible. Do you actually need me to cite the definition?

Comedy gold.

[morningfog]

2. Poll needs more definition. Is "voters" represented by pledged delegates

States won or popular vote?

I take it to me the pledged delegate winner and I say he supers should absolutely not overrule to pledged delegate winner.

I also say super delegates should be done away with entirely.

[Kittycat]

5. Agreed on your last two points.

[Recursion]

35. And if we have a lopsided south for Clinton and lopsided west for Sanders

Then there could be a difference between the popular vote winner and the pledged delegates winner

[morningfog]

44. Yep, with the supers making the decision.

In that case, a valid argument could be made on each side.

This is the problem with supers. They are either irrelevant or a problem.

Remove the supers and make the rules clear: pledged delegate winner wins when the get x pledged delegates. Period.

[Recursion]

57. And if they're irrelevant, that itself is a problem

If we have some set of rules, spoken or unspoken, about how they "have to" vote, just get rid of them.

Hell, for that matter, get rid of delegates period. I mean, obviously don't get rid of delegates literally, just take them out of the equation. Go by the popular vote total.

[morningfog]

58. Agreed.

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. As with 2008, the superdelegates will switch and support the winner. nt

[MohRokTah]

9. Super delegates did not switch until the nomination had already been secured in 2008.

Even then only 50 switched in what could only be seen as political pandering as they had no effect on the outcome at all.

[Agnosticsherbet]

13. I think that if Sanders should, miraculously, win enough delegates to win outright,

The superdelegates will go his way.
I think the chances of that are equal to a little League team winning the world series.

Never-the-less, they are a designed part of the system. As such, I don't have a problem with them.

[MohRokTah]

33. "Win outright" means 2382 delegates.

You absolutely MUST include super delegates into that factoring.

At this moment, Sanders needs 74% of all remaining delegates to reach 2382. That includes the 219 Super Delegates who have not yet endorsed.

Obama reached the "outright win" threshhold on June 3, 2008 by rolling out 60 super delegate endorsements along with his ND win.

No super delegates switched until Obama hit the magic number.

[Agnosticsherbet]

36. That was why I included the world "Miraculous."

[dlwickham]

56. I just saw that he only needs 69% not 74%

like it makes a difference

[MohRokTah]

7. Super Delegates are there to guarantee no demagogues

Democratic leadership saw the possibility of a Donald Trump decades ago and created Super Delegates.

Because they exist, there is almost no chance whatsoever a Trump will ever emerge in the Democratic Party and they have not, to date, ever countered the will of the majority of Democratic Primary voters and Caucus goers since their inception.

Regardless, the very fact that it remains a possibility that a Trump could emerge in the Democaitic Party at some future date, I want to leave the Super Delegates with the authority and ability to overrule the electorate as who knows what could come out about a candidate after the nomination has been secured and before the convention.

Remote as the possibility is, if it came out in early July that Hillary Clinton sold secrets to Putin, I would want the super delegates to overrule the voters and nominate Sanders.

[Marr]

15. Super delegates are there to give the party's establishment extra influence. /nt

[MohRokTah]

19. You are wrong. eom

[OhioBlue]

8. I voted no, but with exceptions...

One exception - If something happened between the votes being cast and the convention that resulted in the candidate being highly compromised, then yes. It is nice to have that fail safe. I wish we had been able to change candidates in the Governor's race in Ohio in '14. The GOP strategically leaked info (I think the day after the deadline to put someone else on the ballot) that made our candidate so weak that I was embarrassed.

[Maru Kitteh]

18. I'll go you one further - they shouldn't exist.

I think the concept of super-delegates is abhorrent. I can't believe we still have them.

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. No...with one (unlikely) caveat.

While I desperately want Bernie Sanders to win the nomination, that doesn't override the need to uphold democratic principles. If Hillary has the lead in pledged delegates going into the convention, the people have spoken.

I would make an exception for what I think the superdelegate system was intended to be for: to prevent a candidate with serious legal issues or other similarly disastrous problems from being on the ticket. An FBI indictment would qualify.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. The FBI doesn't indict people. It's an investigative agency.

The DOJ indicts.

[Lizzie Poppet]

51. Obviously. Got anything besides pedantic nitpicking?

Go ahead...surprise me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. "An internet conversation with a wise person is worth reading a thousand books."

You're welcome.

[MADem]

59. Yes. Civics 101. nt

[morningfog]

21. You changed it to popular vote. Did the supers get is wrong in 2008?

Obama lost the popular vote, I believe.

Hypothetically, if Bernie were to run the table and surpass Hillary in pledged delegates between now and the convention but Hillary maintains a popular vote lead, what should the supers do?

The super delegates are either irrelevant or problematic and should be discontinued.

[MadBadger]

27. Obama won the popular vote, unless you count Florida/Michigan I believe

Those states werent contested except by Hillary (cuz she needed them and went back on her word).

[morningfog]

30. I remember. Those states lost their delegates but

those people still voted.

Regardless the question remains if one candidate had the popular vote and the other the pledged delegates and neither has 2,383, who should the supers break for?

[MadBadger]

34. Obama never campaigned there once.

Those votes never happened as far as I'm concerned.

Idk what should happen in that case.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. I prefer to follow the will of the voters. Also FL and MI were disputed.

I don't really care to re-litigate the 2008 election... I will say it was a lot closer than this race will ever be.

[morningfog]

38. So if between popular and pledged, go popular.

Under your scheme the supers would ensure that the pledged delegate allocation, which candidates conduct the race under, is usurped to protect the popular vote.

Would you prefer a simple popular vote for the primary?

I have no problem with the delegate system, but the supers are irrelevant and in democratic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. If there is a pop vote/pledged delegate split

If there is a pop vote/pledged delegate split I would prefer that the Supers sort it out without losing site of the fact that the person who received the most votes wins.

[morningfog]

54. Popular votes or delegate votes?

I kid. But seriously, I don't think it should be the supers who decide. We don't need them to pick a candidate.

[Recursion]

31. Well now wait. The person with the highest popular vote count may not have more delegates

Those are two very different questions.

[Scootaloo]

37. They overruled the popular vote and gave us obama

But that time they went with the delegate count. As they should.

[MadBadger]

43. Michigan and Florida don't count

[Persondem]

41. Similarly should Independents overrule Democrats?

Your wording is rather one sided.

[upaloopa]

55. Hillary has won the popular vote she has the super delegates

[BainsBane]

66. They should vote for Bernie.

Regardless. I'm pretty sure that's the answer.

[MohRokTah]

78. I changed my vote from "Pass" to "Yes"

Yes, there are extreme circumstances where previously unknown information about the presumptive nominee could be revealed late in the process and under such extreme circumstances the super delegates absolutely should overrule the voters as the final firewall in the vetting process.

I think back to 2008 and John Edwards. Imagine if he somehow had become the presumptive nominee and his illegal use of campaign funds to coverup his affair and child by a woman other than his wife who was dying of cancer did not come out until early July of 2008. The super delegates would have been the final vetting firewall to insure he was not nominated.

[ZombieHorde]

80. I would like to see the General election be by popular vote.

Getting rid of political parties might have more benefits than costs in the US for most of its citizens, but if we are going to have parties, I would like them to by popular vote.

[Liberty Belle]

81. No, but with a couple of caveats.

If the people ever voted for someone who is the antithesis of what democratic values are, I could see a role for the party to step in. Imagine, for instance, if Trump had run as a Democrat and won the primary.

Think it can't happen? In California in 1980, Tom Metzger, grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, won a Democratic Congressional Primary, and the Dem leaders all endorsed the Republican.

So if the only alternative in a presidential race was to have a racist, bigoted, Nazi-emulating hate monger become a Democratic nominee in a close race someday, I would look to the superdelegates to protect Democratic values of equality and compassion, and use their power wisely to block such a nominee.

In a situation like we presently have, however, where we simply have a choice between a very liberal progressive vs. an establishment moderate Democrat, the people's choice should prevail. There will always be shifts from left to center or vice versa, and those should be respected as the will of the people. The party should not force one candidate down the people's throats if the people are voting for change, within that range of values that our party stands for.

I could see a couple of other scenarios where the party leaders might need to step in and vote for a candidate who didn't win the popular vote. What if the leading candidate had a serious medical problem and couldn't formally withdraw--was in a coma, for instance? Or if the winning candidate was indicted or worse, convicted of a serious felony? (As in CA, where a legislator was convicted of gunrunning and conspiring with organized crime) Or if a serious scandal broke AFTER the primaries were over -- such as the scandal about John Edwards fathering a baby with his mistress? In all the examples in this paragraph, the superdelegates would have info that emerged only after voters cast their votes and could perhaps forestall a catastrophe by acting on that new information.

So yes, I can see a role for superdelegates, but I think it should be defined more narrowly to only allow them to ignore the popular vote if there are certain very specific conditions -- not just liking one candidates more than the other, or repaying someone who campaigned for them, or trying to stay in the good graces of party officials, as goes on so much in the super delegate process right now.

[bigwillq]

82. No

Pop vote should be the deciding factor, even if that means the candidate (s) I support never win an another election. I support democracy and believe elections should be decided BY THE PEOPLE

[Gothmog]

83. The new Sanders strategy of appealing to super delegates is not going to work