Hillary supporters-- do you really think the superdelegate system is a good thing?

[Marr]

Last edited Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:04 PM - Edit history (2)

If so, at what point would you say it's too much?

The number of superdelegates has consistently risen over the years since the practice was instituted, and they currently comprise about 20% of the total delegates needed to secure the nomination. Would you still support the practice if they comprised 40% of the needed total? Three quarters? All?

[Buzz Clik]

1. This year, it won't matter.

[oldandhappy]

2. Tis good until someone used it against them.

[silvershadow]

6. I don't have an opinion at all on your opinion.

[MattP]

3. No it's a horrible idea

they shouldnt declare until after all states have voted if they are going to exist at all

[Fresh_Start]

4. I want a direct vote...

with every vote equal

no caucuses
no delegates
just a direct vote

[Thinkingabout]

9. Delegates are designed to go to the convention. It has only been a few years

Primaries have been held. We don't even use direct vote from the states to elect the president.

[Fresh_Start]

11. of course I know that

I still want a direct vote.
For the nominee and also in the GE
Winner take all is crap.
delegates able to ignore the voters is also crap

I have this concept of democracy...which I would like us to move closer to

[Thinkingabout]

16. Yes, I hope they pay attention to the three million votes Hillary has over Sanders.

[Thinkingabout]

5. Yes, the super delegates serve a purpose, to prevent hostile take over by another party.

The GOP probably wishes they had super delegates this year. The super delegates consist of Democratic congressional members, present and past state and other level officials and the DNC committee members.

[Eric J in MN]

27. We had the modern primary system without Super Delegates

...from 1972-1980. There was no takeover by another party in those years.

[Thinkingabout]

30. There have been changes since then, we did not have candidates wanting

Revolutions and TP, oligarchy who thinks a few should rule the rest, we the people is still a majority and wants to set the rules of our platform and convention.

[Eric J in MN]

40. Super Delegates make the system more oligarchic.

If someone serves as the DNC Chair for 5 years of 5 minutes, that person is a Super Delegate for life. Ex-DNC chairs aren't royalty and shouldn't be treated as royalty.

[Thinkingabout]

44. Oligarchy by the far left, count the votes, SD's are good, control by the

Far left, bad.

[Il_Coniglietto]

7. Ask the GOP

They'd kill for one.

[Marr]

8. Oh-- well, if the GOP wants it, it's got to be egalitarian.

lol.

[Il_Coniglietto]

14. I'm sure they want lots of things

Like a soul. But Trump is what they have and what they wish they had is a red button saying "push in case of emergency." We Democrats like to learn from history so we aren't doomed to repeat it. Republicans...not so much. Can't say I mind watching them suffer.

[Marr]

17. I actually saw a roundtable discussion on... I think it was CNN, where several GOP

strategists were talking about how they need to institute a superdelegate system, 'like the Democrats'. Their party establishment is openly and actively working to counter the voters' choice, and pining for a system like ours because it would allow them to do so with ease. To me, that's offensively elitist and undemocratic.

Trump is an ass-- but if that's who their voters vote for, that's who they should get. Besides, who would their 'wise' party leadership want to install in his place, anyway? Cruz? Jeb? Paul Ryan?

[Il_Coniglietto]

21. It is an undemocratic system

They make no bones about that. Parties are free to make their own rules as they see fit. Theoretically and ideologically, I'm against a superdelegate system. However, let me present a situation. It's mid 2008. Clinton and Obama have fizzled out and John Edwards is the likely nominee. It's nearly convention time when news breaks of his affair with a staffer while his wife was fighting breast cancer. His numbers plummet in the polls. Would you want superdelegates then? I would.

[Marr]

23. I think a candidate like that would generally drop out, as Gary Hart did in '87.

I won't deny that you can come up with scenarios in which a superdelegate system seems wise. But you can do the same on the other side.

Imagine if Sanders came into the convention with a slight pledged delegate lead, but neither candidate had enough to lock the nomination. The superdelegates would, I expect, still vote for Clinton. The damage that would do to the party's legitimacy (not to mention that of the nominee), would be extreme. The Republicans are searching for some way to legitimately exclude Trump, not because they have to, but because they know their replacement won't stand a chance if they appear to have subverted the will of the voters and simply installed their own man.

You're absolutely right-- the party can formulate any rules it likes for nominating a candidate. They could do away with voting altogether and just have the nominee chosen by a collection of superdelegates. But that nominee wouldn't be seen as legitimate by many and would never be elected.

[JaneyVee]

10. Tad Devine helped create the superdelegate system.

I think it should go by popular vote after 50 state strategy.

[Eric J in MN]

45. Bernie Sanders has called the SD system 'problematic' and HRC hasn't. NT

NT

[puffy socks]

52. Because he's losing. Now he suddenly wants to overturn SD even if he doesnt get the popular vote. nt

[Tarc]

12. It doesn't really matter, as the candidate with the most pledged delegates will be the nominee

[Marr]

13. If it didn't matter, the practice never would've been instituted.

But what percentage would make you question the practice? What if 40% of the needed delegate count were comprised of superdelegates? Would that be problematic, in your opinion?

[Tarc]

15. It doesn't matter

At most, what the superdelegates can do is serve as a stopgap against a truly batshit insane candidate taking the nomination. I'm betting right about now the GOP wishes they did their nomination process more like ours.

[Marr]

19. They're openly pining for it.

But I'm serious-- at what point would you consider it problematic? This isn't a gotcha question, I'm honestly curious. Would it bother you if half the needed delegates could be supplied by party insiders alone?

To me, any thumb on the scale is problematic, but an openly sanctioned one is even moreso. I understand the argument you're making, and I think there's a degree of validity to it. I don't agree with it, but I do understand it.

[LuvLoogie]

18. Hillary is winning. That is good.

[Onlooker]

20. It's the only thing giving Bernie a chance at this point n/t

[pampango]

24. That's the weird thing, IMHO. We Bernie supporters, at least some of us, are looking to the super-

delegates to move to Bernie for him to win the nomination. If there were no superdelegates, Hillary's lead in pledged delegates would be just about insurmountable. 6 months ago I would have thought the superdelegates, if they were relevant at all, would be Hillary's savior.

That weirdness matches the closed vs open primary debate among Democrats. In past elections that issue did not seem to come up much. Some states had caucuses, some had open primaries and some had closed primaries. The mish-mash just seemed to be part of the process.

And 6 months ago I would have thought that Hillary would have had an advantage in caucuses due to her experienced 'team' and open primaries where more moderate independents and crossover republicans could vote for her (since she is not as liberal as Bernie) and Bernie would have done better in closed primaries in which his popularity among Democrats would be an advantage. Goes to show what I know.

[artislife]

22. They love it.

[Agschmid]

42. Actually we don't, and our candidate would still be winning without them.

I think super delegates should be done away with, and I've said that the whole time.

[brooklynite]

25. The Superdelegate pool rises as more Democrats are elected...

...that's a GOOD thing, right?

[Eric J in MN]

26. There have also been DNC rule changes

...which expanded the number of Super Delegates. Originally, it didn't include every Congressional Democrat or former party officials.

We shouldn't have Super Delegates. Our votes for presidential nominee should count as much as anyone else's.

[morningfog]

32. It's all self referential and meaningless.

Yes, more elected Dems is better and the right direction. But more super delegates is not a good thing and has no bearing on the power balance with respect to repubs. Super delegates are purely internal. Your point is meaningless.

[FarPoint]

28. I support the super delegate system.

Ultimately, the Democratic Party is a private group/organization, not a government component. I see the rationale for a Party to reinforce Party philosophy with Party members. No way should outsiders such as Independents, Green's Libertarians, Republicans be able to influence the private group/organization as in the Democratic Party of topic in their selection of a leader. Such outside influences arise from open elections, caucuses and crossovers in many states. The super-delegates insure Party unity.

[Thinkingabout]

34. Absolutely, a safety net against hostile take overs. The Democratic Party has been

Here for a long time and I see it going on much longer, if we wanted to be in other parties we have a choice.

[firebrand80]

29. Yes, on one condition

That they don't collectively go against the candidate that wins more PDs, outside of some extraordinary circumstance.

I'm ok with having them there to protect the party in the event that something crazy happened.

[morningfog]

33. But that is not the condition presently and who defines

Extraordinary circumstance.

Just let the voters in the democratic primary decide.

[firebrand80]

46. What if Hillary gets indicted?

I think 90% of us would agree that the SDs should give the nomination to Bernie.

That's the kind of extraordinary circumstance I'm talking about.

[morningfog]

48. That doesn't follow.

Suppose Bernie had dropped out after SC and had only 100 or so pledged delegates. Then, HIllary gets indicted. You aren't suggesting the ONLY way to deal with that would be through super delegates stepping in, are you? Because under that scenario, it wouldn't get Bernie there.

If HIllary were indicted, it would be handled the same way as if a candidate fell ill or died after securing enough delegates but before the convention. We simply do not need super delegates.

[firebrand80]

51. I honestly don't know

what would happen in that situation. If there's a better solution than the system we currently have I'd me fine with it.

[Zynx]

31. I prefer a direct vote and also no caucuses. There shouldn't even be delegates.

The nomination should just go to the popular vote winner.

[Thinkingabout]

35. No delegates, no convention, we establish the platform, we get news coverage and it is a time

To rally the voters to go out and vote in the GE. There has not been voting in the past but the DNC Committee made the decision. Again excitement for the primaries.

[Zynx]

37. I should clarify, no delegates for the purpose of selecting the nominee.

Delegates for forming the platform, absolutely. They can be chosen via state conventions as they basically are right now anyway.

[Thinkingabout]

38. It was differently before, I like member participation, a time to put issues to the test.

[4139]

36. Bernie supporter; should only be....

House members, senators and a max of 2 from from statewide elected officials(gov, lt gov), plus 1 from each state state party.

[rock]

39. Who said it was good

However, it is the DNC's choice as to what system they want to use. If you have a suggestion, tell them.

[Recursion]

41. Not an HRC supporter, but: it was designed to prevent another Carter

That is, somebody with only a plurality in a multiple-candidate field, from winning outright.

I'm really not sure what relevance they have in the modern party system.

[Agschmid]

43. I'm a Hillary supporter who doesn't think they should exist.

[ecstatic]

47. From my understanding, it's to reward loyal, hard-working volunteers.

From that perspective, I don't have a problem with it. There hasn't been a situation in which superdelegates handed the nomination to a candidate who was behind in pledged delegates.

Any changes to the system would need to be made well before an election year, IMO.

[FlatBaroque]

49. This shouldn't be hard to understand...

If it helps Hillary Clinton it is a good thing
If it hurts Hillary Clinton it is a bad thing.

The cult's entire belief system summed up in two sentences.

[book_worm]

50. No, it came out of the whole McGovern fiasco

but anyway even without the Super Delegates HRC will have a majority of the delegates.

[whatthehey]

53. Well let's correct factual inaccuracies first

There are 719 superdelegates this year, down by over 100 from 2008, and that is 15% of the total, so hardly an ever-increasing 20%.

Are they a good idea? As they have been used to date yes, potentially no, potentially vitally yes. Preference in this primary has no bearing on any of those.

Superdelegates have never overridden a popular result, and show no signs of doing so this time, that makes them a good idea because for a start they have allowed more grass roots delegates to attend the convention. Imagine being someone in, say, Nevada, wishing to be elected a national delegate and running against some old guy called Harry Reid. Think you'd stand a chance? Separate him as a superdelegate and now you're running against Harry Smith and you have a shot, and the nominee with SDs is as the same as without.

Superdelegates COULD, potentially, override a close popular vote. It's not impossible or even particularly difficult to imagine a Sanders campaign that might with a few changes have headed into Philly with 10 or 20 more pledged delegates than HRC. This makes them at least potentially bad, especially if you believe Sanders would do better than HRC in the GE.

Superdelegates could, easily, protect us from a Trump style GE disaster, and trust me if he's the nominee it will be a disaster for the GOP. You can whine all you want about "overriding the will of the people" but I don't want some overweening utterly incompetent celebrity taking advantage of a crowded primary to win on the basis of Kardashian Nation voters "having a laugh" and poisoning the brand for a generation. That's primarily what they are for, to provide a backstop not against "anti-establishment" veteran politicos like Sanders but against suicidally stupid plurality outsiders like Trump.