Here is an in-house fight I think most DUers would agree on - get rid of Super Delagates!
Rumor has it by 2020, 2/3 of Super delegates will have to vote in line with state results.
Personally, I'd like to see SDs eliminated entirely. If we want a party free from $ buying votes and influence peddling, this is the best and most Democratic path forward.
Ageee?
= new reply since forum marked as read
F%¤k single parents, the disabled, the working poor, etc, etc, etc. We don't want those participating in democracy anyway.
(just in case I need it.)
Exactly this!
I would agree that perhaps SDs should keep their choice secret until at least their own state primary, but it wasn't SDs that ended up electing Hillary, it was the people. Bernie won very few non-caucus states. If anything, they should eliminate caucuses. They don't really work for large, populous states.
Geez, perhaps we don't agree on this either?
Can we Dems ((unite)) enough to focus on beating the orange fascist and his minions?
That's priority #1, if...IF we can unite and create real enthusiasm behind our unity.
...undemocratic caucus system. It's supposed to be Democratic!
Agree!
He WON. That is what we claim to want to do right? Win?
Not only that, it was the Undemocratic Electoral college that gave him the victory in the End. True democracy would have given us the White House!
All supporting SD does is make us look like hypocrites every time we point to the 3 million votes Hillary won by. Democracy is good in the general but not the Primary? 
The fact is that every single Super Delegate is an elected representative, either by general elections or dnc elections.
1.Elected members of the Democratic National Committee: "the chairs and vice chairs of each state and territorial Democratic Party; 212 national committeemen and committeewomen elected to represent their states; top officials of the DNC itself and several of its auxiliary groups (such as the Democratic Attorneys General Association, the National Federation of Democratic Women and the Young Democrats of America); and 75 at-large members who are nominated by the party chairman and chosen by the full DNC."[3] Most of the at-large members "are local party leaders, officeholders and donors or representatives of important Democratic constituencies, such as organized labor."[3] There were 437 DNC members (with 433 votes) who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[3]
2.Democratic Governors (including territorial governors and the Mayor of the District of Columbia). There were 21 Democratic Governors who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[3]
3.Democratic Members of Congress. There were 191 U.S. Representatives (including non-voting delegates from Washington, D.C. and territories) and 47 U.S. Senators (including Washington, D.C. shadow senators) who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[3]
4.Distinguished party leaders (consisting of current and former Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC chairs). There were 20 of these who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[3]
The issue is should 100% of the delegates to the convention be elected during a 3-4 month period where an interloper, say someone who has not been active in the party, come in lay down tens of millions of dollars or create a firestorm and get a mass of people involved in primaries
or should we allocate 85% to the immediate primary process and allocate a small number 15% to delegates WHO HAVE BEEN DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED IN GENERAL ELECTION VOTES OVER LONGER PERIOD OF TIME
Not only do the Super Delegates represent DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED office holders they represent people who have obtained SUBSTANTIALLY MORE VOTES THAN DELEGATES ELECTED IN PRIMARIES because they usually have faced voters in multiple elections and always in General Elections. In so far as the point of the nomination process is to win in the general election it is prudent to ensure that a reasonable number of delegates are people who have actually won in the General Election.
The 400 votes that Secretary Clinton had were from people that had more votes for them than any of the primary delegate candidates would get (with the exception of the half dozen former DNC chairs who, nevertheless were elected to their position by Democratic state chairpersons).
Your facts are wrong, your logic is wrong, your resorting to the F bomb only underlines that you don't have the tools to win a discussion on merit. The SDs were added as a stabilizing factor after the McGovern disaster (which I worked on and supported) gave us a rebirth of the Republican Party and the tragedy of the Nixon reelection and destroying our Congressional and Senatorial base. Some people need to see it in a picture
A superdelegate can vote contrary to the wishes of the people of their state. THAT IS BY DEFINITION undemocratic.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/democracy
‘a system of parliamentary democracy’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1count noun A state governed under a system of democracy.
‘a multiparty democracy’
More example sentences
1.2 Control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
‘the intended extension of industrial democracy’
More example sentences
1.3 The practice or principles of social equality.
‘demands for greater democracy’
Further, I was never ever given a ballot to vote for the super delegate posiiton. Not once. And I and 35% of my state went for Sanders. But he got 0 of the 21 SD. Again, that is NOT democratic by ANY definition of the word. 35% of the people of Texas wanted Sanders, he should have gotten at least 7 SD. They didn't even TRY and represent us. They decided for us.
Yes they were elected to OTHER positions but they were not ELECTED as SD, but appointed. As such they should represent the will of the people. They didn't do that.
If the people of the party want an interloper, then that is what they should get. That is because that is what the people of the party WANTED. That is what DEMOCRACY means.
And one or two candidates having almost all the money and poorer long term dems not being able to compete is still happening SD or no. There are many other ways to deal with the money issue that doesn't involve a delegate who can ignore the will of the people. Putting limits on what a candidate can spend, matching funding, ect.
Of those 400 delegates for Clinton, How many of them had more votes for the 2016 Democratic Primary for President than Sanders? None. Not a one of them.
My facts are correct. My logic is sound. And I resorted to the F bomb because I CARE about how I am represented. Your TONE FALLACY doesn't in anyway impune the merit of my argument. Try actually addressing what i said rather than handwaving it away.
By the way, how much better did you guys do after McGovern? We never had such an embarrasing defeat again did we? Like, you know, in 1984:
I still stand by the OP, and am grateful we can disagree with kindness and strong opinions!
Ultimately, whatever we do to start winning again in 2018 is what I'm most passionate about!!
who have earned election to office? What do they know?
1 person = 1 vote. Period!
Of course, that means fighting like hell against wingnut gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Thanks for explaining your position LostOne!
Looks like we are in the minority view on this thread, but hope this question is addressed by the DNC. They have a lot of work to do.
