At Maine convention, Democrats to vote on eliminating superdelegates

[jpak]

Source: Bangor Daily News

Maine Democrats will vote on a rule change at this weekend’s state convention that could reshape future presidential contests.

The proposed change could also prompt a floor fight between supporters of presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

Portland state Rep. Diane Russell, who is introducing the rule, is hopeful that the fight won’t happen, but that so-called superdelegates will be eliminated in 2020.

“We have a system of government where you have one person, one vote, by and large,” Russell says. “The primary system is not when that happens. And I think that we need to start moving toward a system that’s more fair, that’s more democratic and more reflective of the popular vote.”

<more>

Read more: http://bangordailynews.com/2016/05/04/politics/at-maine-convention-democrats-to-vote-on-eliminating-superdelegates/

---

As Maine Goes...etc.

[allan01]

1. put everything back to 10 days like in europe

free television and radio air time along with print. the media open to all sides equaly not just one sided and get rid of citezens united. money isnt free speach its a tool.

[lewebley3]

6. I want supper delegates they protect are party from Jim Webb and Trump

[roguevalley]

22. they keep good candidates from beating bad ones

By the way pugs don't use super delegates

[yallerdawg]

24. And they just nominated Trump.

The only way Trump will win is if we nominate an equally extreme fringe candidate - which didn't happen, of course!

[Gore1FL]

61. The GOP has supers too. but The rules are different and there are only 3 per state. nt

[The Second Stone]

84. Then Sanders can claim to be a Republican and run in their

primary where he thinks it is fairer.

If Sanders had been a member of the party of his whole adult life, like Hillary Clinton, he'd be doing a lot better with the super-delegates, who are all elected public or party officials. This claim that they don't represent anyone but themselves is bullshit. They represent democratic voters and are elected by them.

[BunkieBandit]

89. Did Bernie begin as a republican? No.

Did Hillary? Yes.

[The Second Stone]

90. Hillary has been a Democrat for decades. Bernie? Months.

Before that he was a socialist of a particular kind. He's a pleasant enough man, but his politics are odd.

[Feeling the Bern]

97. Singe Payer health care, affordable college, ending wealthy inequality, holding corporation liable f

for their misdeeds, equal pay for women, $15 minimum wage, auditing the Fed, no protracted wars on lies, immigration reform, ending for profit prisons, stopping climate change, ending fracking. . .yeah, really odd.

The Democrats have really swung to the right if these positions are "odd." Glad I re-registered as an independent and went principles over party.

Wait, will that get me purged from DU?

[Nitram]

111. Bunkie, how long ago did Clinton become a Democrat?

You're talking about 50 years ago. Half a century. When she was a junior in college. I don't know about you, but most kids grow up strongly influenced by their parents. While they are away at college, they start to become real individuals based on exposure to ideas from different people from different backgrounds. Clinton became a Democrat because she supported civil rights and was against the Vietnam war. She worked for Eugene McCarthy's campaign that same year. Following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students to recruit more black students and faculty.

I think it's time Bernie supporters stopped trotting out this tired and irrelevant talking point, don't you?

[lancer78]

106. Didn't ABC news

discover that at least 67 of our super delegates are lobbyists?

[A Simple Game]

109. Funny when I read your post it sounds like the super delegates represent the

establishment not the voters. Try reading your own post and see what you think.

We now also know that all the money Hillary is supposedly raising for down ticket candidates is in fact just going to be bribe money for the super delegates.

[mindwalker_i]

25. "Supper" delegates?

That could be tasty

[FrodosPet]

32. With fava beans and a nice chianti

[awoke_in_2003]

91. Do you want the hose again? nt

[lewebley3]

40. Maybe

[TheFarseer]

34. Because Jim Webb was just an eyelash from winning the nomination

And a mysoginistic racist is the kind of candidate Democrats would line up to vote for. And in terms of raw votes, Hillary seems to have won without supers. Superdelegates suck. Screw superdelegates. All they did was make the whole process look like it was rigged.

[lewebley3]

37. Superdelegates are party office holders: they should have say over the rest of the

party: they are ones that will have to work with the person. The GOP
cannot work with Trump: he's crazy

[TheFarseer]

45. All people are equal, but some are more equal than others?

I have no problem if they influence with their endorsements, but with supers we might as well go back to the smoke filled rooms from the 1800s. We just don't agree on this issue.

[jeff47]

53. No. Some superdelegates are party office holders.

Many became superdelegates for less noble, and less accountable reasons. Like being a lobbyist that gave a lot of money to the party.

[lewebley3]

54. If they have won a Dem office: the have some appoval of Dem votes;

Superdelegates are a good idea: They care about the party and have
invested hard work to support the party.

[ReRe]

70. A party of the "Party"...

... or a party of the people? Your "Party" is a club, lewebley3, and the people. Aren't. In. It.

[jeff47]

96. And if you actually read my post, you'll find lots of superdelegates have never held office.

Their only qualification is the size of their checkbook.

[Dont call me Shirley]

68. I'd rather eat my own supper than a supper delegate eat my supper.

[Helen Borg]

21. Yup. 10 days is more than enough to

tell people where you stand.

[Dustlawyer]

36. I disagree. While I don't like multi-year campaigning, 10 days are not enough for someone

who has great ideas and may make an awesome representative of the people. Another candidate with name recognition would win everytime!

[mdbl]

107. Hell, give em 30 days then

That should be more than enough

[FrodosPet]

29. I really am considering a run for President in 2020

Free media would be awesome! Then I could focus on my message, and not fundraising!

[lewebley3]

38. Go a head no one is stopping you

[houston16revival]

2. Founding Fathers knew the risks of mob rule, that is to say

popular opinion

They included many ways to prevent that

We've eroded those safeguards with

direct election of Senators, one man one vote,
in some states elected judges, the beginnings of
watering down the Electoral College

It's opened the door for Trump in the GOP party,
and in the country

The Founding Fathers also feared parties, or as they called them,
factions, because in their day there was a common middle and
genuine compromise

We have lost a lot of reasonableness in our leaders and system

It's polarizing, you know that story

[Vincardog]

35. Founding Fathers also knew the benefit of Slavery, Only Men can vote, rule by the landed Gentry.

To pretend that the original Constitution was perfect (in the sense that your opinion of it is perfect) is a game the RW play.

Specifically an STOTUS justice now deceased.

He used his interpretation of their original intent to justify such BS as:
1 Corporations are people with all the rights of people
2 Money is not property it is speech
3 Limiting corporate political contributions is limiting their Free Speech rights

[houston16revival]

42. I'm not playing a game here

I am stating something that is widely recognized by Constitutional scholars

as well as political science professors

namely, that the US Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers, themselves

erudite scholars of democracy and the founding and operational principles of
democratic government throughout history known to them at that time, as well
as the reasons governments and civilizations fail

sought to protect the long term best interests of their people, their system, and their
country

by filtering public opinion to prevent mob rule

Original intent is not the purpose of my post, it is a statement of the practical and
mechanical operation of the mechanisms they put in place in their document

I have no time for fools here

[Vincardog]

43. The Founding fathers believed the rabble was best served by letting their "betters" make the

important decisions. That is why they did not allow direct election of the Senate.

Sorry you have no time for fools like me.

[LisaM]

80. It was a very different world.

Most of the population didn't read or write, the colonies were all under separate governments, there were people living out in the woods who probably didn't talk to anyone outside of their immediate circle for months - the rules they had would be terrible now, but were clearly designed to have an informed electorate.

You just can't make an apples to apples comparison.

[Vincardog]

81. This sub-tread was brought about by the poster claiming the Founder's intent as justification for

His views. He asserted that moving to direct elections of the Senate was contrary to the founders intent to prevent "mob rule".
The PTB are working hard now to prevent an informed electorate from existing.

[mdbl]

108. Thank God he's gone

I prayed and prayed for that. And I'm not even religious. LOL

[FrodosPet]

41. Democracy would be great, if only...

...we could get rid of those pesky voters and allow the elites to choose our leadership.

[harun]

110. The problem of a tyranny of the majority is always there but has

nothing to do with Primaries. Someone winning a Primary doesn't win the election or make law.

Dem's can use super delegates to pick unpopular candidates over popular ones at their own peril.

[yallerdawg]

3. We also need to consider "The Sanders Rule" going forward.

You have to be a member of the Democratic Party for 5 years in order to run in the Democratic Party presidential primary.

Otherwise, I vote to keep party faithful superdelegates!

[silvershadow]

5. Or, just get rid of parties. nt

[lewebley3]

7. No just get rid of sore losers like Sanders

[silvershadow]

8. He isn't losing. nt

[LiberalFighter]

14. Really?

By the numbers.

Pledged Delegates Only -- Clinton: 1704 --- Sanders: 1414 --- Losing by 290 delegates.
Pledged & Unpledged -- Clinton: 2202 --- Sanders: 1455 --- Losing by 747 delegates.

[silvershadow]

59. Oh you're using the numbers without the Great Coast to Coast Disenfranchisement

Tour factored in.

[Skittles]

101. Bernie is winning

[silvershadow]

103. better video:

[Skittles]

104. Bernie math

got it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/02/yes-bernie-sanders-can-force-a-contested-convention-that-doesnt-mean-he-can-win-one/?postshare=5161462197767986&tid=sm_tw

[silvershadow]

105. Hillary math- being shoved down our throats. nt

[leftofcool]

15. He is a loser!

[Bradical79]

72. Why are you acting like a child?

"He's a loser" What kind of response is that? Are you 12?

[Feeling the Bern]

98. It's people like this that really get my blood pumping about voting for hillary.

And by blood pumping, I mean not wanting to at all.

Win the election without the Bernie Sanders supporters you seem to hate so much. HRC does so below mediocre with independents. Attitudes like yours will keep us home if she is the nominee because why should we vote for someone who has pretty said she doesn't need us?

[LiberalFighter]

11. I second that.

[lewebley3]

13. Thanks

[thesquanderer]

33. That may not always be an option.

For example, in Vermont, there is actually no way for someone to register as a member of one party of another.

But I don't see any reason to add severe rules like that anyway, which can just as easily rule out "good" candidates as "bad" ones. I think it has to be up to the voters to determine whether someone meets their own criteria for deserving their vote, I don't think the state has to place stiffer restrictions on the options.

For an example of how it could work the other way, maybe someone should have to be a resident of a state for 5 years before running for Senate in that state, yes? But then Hillary could not have become Senator. Tough restrictions can cut both ways. And you can't make any assumptions about who will really benefit.

[yallerdawg]

46. Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy is a Democrat.

Vermont Representative Peter Welch is a Democrat.

Vermont Gov. Shumlin is a Democrat.

Sanders is an independent.

It has nothing to do with party registration. Sanders is running as a Democrat because he says he is a Democrat.

This rule requires the presidential candidate has been saying it for 5 years - not saying something else for the last 5 years.

[thesquanderer]

50. Sure, once they are approved to get on the Democratic ticket, they are de facto Democrats.

By that standard, so is Bernie.

But before they qualify to get on a ballot, as far as I know, there's no "official" declaration of any party affiliation in VT.

[yallerdawg]

55. That's why we need "The Sanders Rule."

Sanders is not a Democratic Senator. He is the longest running independent in Congress.

The Sanders Rule is very specific, just as getting rid of superdelegates is very specific.

[green917]

60. actually, he now is a democratic senator

The moment he decided to run as a democrat, it changed his party affiliation (by the bylaws of the senate). which is not to mention the fact that he has been a better champion of democratic ideals over his long stint as an independent than most democrats have been.

[yallerdawg]

65. Actually, he remains an independent.

http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/senators_cfm.cfm?State=VT

Except for his Democratic presidential primary campaign, I see nothing associating him to the Democratic Party - he just "caucuses" with us.

[green917]

112. i stand corrected

[ReRe]

74. Well, maybe we need a WJC Rule...

... then, if we are going to distinguish one person more or less a democrat than another in our party. If Bernie isn't a Democrat, then what do we call Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton wasn't a real Democrat when he was elected. He was a right wing democrat (a DLCer) thus so, since he went along with the idea that Democrats couldn't get elected to office anymore, unless they leaned severely to the right, went corporate, etc.

Let's do. Let's talk "Party" politics.

Bring it on!!!!

[yallerdawg]

83. The country had turned "right."

Reagan defeated an incumbent Democratic president after one term away from the party that gave us Nixon.

Dukakis was crushed by Bush at the end of a scandal-ridden second term of St. Ronnie.

Three Republican terms in a row!

Your biased revisionist perspective towards Clinton does not reflect at all the hope and promise we felt electing Clinton. And Gore was ideal!

This was in the face of the mid-term Gingrich revolution - repeated again after the Obama election.

You all need to stop pushing a fantasy that has never existed.

[GoneOffShore]

86. Indeed - It's WJC-HRC Inc. And has been

since the beginning.

Clinton Inc., has always been about the bottom line - making money for the closely held corporation.

[ReRe]

87. Damn right, GoneOffShore

Can you believe someone calling himself a Democrat would have the nerve to disagree with me? Insinuating that I am out of my mind!!! Whining about Ronald Reagan????????
(Where is that crying baby sound when need it?)

Who is out of their mind in the Democratic Party folks?
Is it the real Democrats or the WJC-HRC Inc wing of the democratic party?

[CoffeeCat]

4. We did a similar vote in Iowa last weekend.

Our vote was at the Iowa Third District Convention last weekend. The vote was to amend the state platform to include that we are against Super Delegates.

As you can imagine the vote split down the line with Clinton delegates overwhelmingly voting "Nay" and Sanders delegates overwhelmingly voting "Aye."

Unfortunately, the vote failed by ONE vote; 169 Nays
168 Ayes

[lewebley3]

10. States don't decide on supper delegates: Government shouldn't be telling

a private party what to do. If people want to run for office they can anytime
they want: but it is up to the parties to decide how to conduct themselves.

[AllyCat]

27. I like food so I will vote for the supper delegate

Are they like Iron Chefs?

[Dont call me Shirley]

69. I love Iron Chef food for supper!

[thesquanderer]

28. The party in each state can decide what they want to do, I believe. (n/t)

[LiberalFighter]

9. The only reason they are against automatic delegates

Last edited Fri May 6, 2016, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

is because they think their candidate is harmed by it. They don't have a clue as to what is happening with the delegate results.

Clinton is ahead of Sanders by 290 pledged delegates with 933 pledged delegates remaining.

Clinton is ahead of Sanders by 747 total delegates with 1107 remaining of both pledged & unpledged delegates.

Clinton would be ahead of Sanders using the Republican "Winner Take All" method 2,266 to 838.


What opponents also fail to understand is that if automatic delegates were eliminated the pledged delegates would be the elected government officials and party officials with very few of them from outside that circle.


By this time in 2008 (After Indiana and North Carolina primaries) Obama was ahead of Clinton 1652 to 1592 delegates. A difference of 60 delegates.

Delegates in 2008 was 3,566 pledged and 852 unpledged for a total of 4,418. The majority of the pledged delegates was 1,784. Obama had 1,842.5 delegate votes compared to Clinton's 1,720.5 a difference of 122 delegates.

[lewebley3]

12. Agreed: Supper delegates protect the party from a McGovern or Trump

[leftofcool]

16. And Bernie

[jopacaco]

18. What are they serving at the supper?

I would expect that it is super!

[Kittycat]

58. Maine is stating proportionate split, not all or nothing.

I could have read your post wrong, if so, please forgive me. I don't have my readers on (damn 40's killing my eyesight). Anywho. What Maine is proposing is a proportional split vs all or nothing, or even by district. Forget the 15% threshhold, forget pledged vs SDs. This is truly we the people, by state (which allows for their different voting rules/until national rules can be set and supported) even when SDs get that extra vote.

I could not agree with more. I don't care who it counts for or against, do the math or don't. But here's the paragraph:

Russell’s amendment would change that in 2020, making it so all delegates, including superdelegates, are allocated proportionately to a state’s caucus results. Also, her amendment would send a nonbinding but “strong suggestion” that this year’s delegates vote according to this year’s Maine caucus results.

In March Sanders defeated Clinton with 64 percent of the vote.

[LiberalFighter]

82. Read my post a couple of posts down.

The math used to determine delegates and the method of allocating delegates based on election results does allocate delegates proportionally both when determining how many each state receives and allocated. The same for the automatic delegates.

The Green Papers has the math to determine how many delegates each state receives.

Check out states that have already completed their primaries. TGP shows the percent for each congressional district and the delegate split. One of the quirks is that districts with even number delegates of 8 or less can usually result in an even split. Most districts have 8 or less delegates. If a candidate has the most votes doesn't have more than 50.5% each candidate receives the same number of delegates. The winning candidate ends up losing a possible delegate while the other candidate stays even. They could all add up if the winner got it based on votes.

Unless a candidate is a John Edwards, Donald Trump, or other similar type candidate automatic delegates will not be a factor. They are going to do what is best for the party by weighing the factors. They did with Obama in 2008.

So what that really means is that how the pledged delegates play out will be the outcome of the nomination without the automatic delegates. It would have to be something drastic for Clinton's lead of nearly 290 delegates would disappear.

[Gore1FL]

62. Super delegates are always a bad idea.

If they ever changed the outcome of the pledged delegates, the party would explode on national television.

[LiberalFighter]

75. It has never happened. Yet people are upset about.

Only because they don't know enough about it. And the ones that stir it up are the media and losers. Probably Republicans too. Yet, they don't say anything about the unbound delegates that Republicans have in their primaries. Neither the various methods they conduct their elections.

The Democratic nomination process is designed to get the best possible outcome. With an attempt to achieve it with the pledged delegates. It is not perfect because the states do not have the same type of primaries or even the hours to hold the elections. The DNC does not get to decide that part. The delegates are primarily apportioned at the congressional and also the state level with at least one state using counties instead of districts because they only have one district. That gives even second place candidates the opportunity to gain a few additional delegates if they are stronger in some parts of the state. But it also can disadvantage a winning candidate when the margin of the win is not enough to split the results to favor them mainly when only an even number of delegates are available.

The method of allotting delegates provides more delegates that is based on Democratic turnout for a Presidential candidate. Meaning that states with comparable population will have more delegates if they are more blue than red. Even states that are all red could have differences just by having a higher turnout on the Democratic side.

One of the creators of this system is Sanders' campaign manager, Tad Devine. He should know how to play the system to their advantage. But even with that knowledge he couldn't accomplish it because all of the numbers worked against them.

[Bodych]

17. How did the Dem Party even properly exist before 1982...

...the year that super delegates were invented? How did the GOP exist without them?

We know their intended purpose: To protect the best interests of the party.

However, many super delegates became beholden to one politician before the primary season even started!

So how did these folks know they were protecting the best interests of the party, well before candidates released their strategies, agendas, proposals, etc?

They didn't.

[anigbrowl]

79. Well it is possible to form opinions about people by meeting them

Or by looking at their record. I had already decided to support Hillary Clinton before she announced her run.

[Firebrand Gary]

19. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahha this coming from the state that elected Paul LePage TWICE!

What a fucking joke!

[Bodych]

20. So you think that Maine Dems voted for LePage? Really?

[Gman]

23. Nothing says the primary is supposed to be one person one vote

General election, yes. The primary is not an election. A primary is conducted by an organization known as a political party and is not run by the government.

[JimDandy]

26. No. Primaries are elections run by the government. Caucuses are run by the parties.

That's why there are Independents all over the country whose tax $$ paid for the primaries, but who are pissed off because they weren't allowed to vote in them.

Any election, including primaries, must follow election laws, so YES, a primary must be one person, one vote.

[Bodych]

31. THANK YOU for stating this

You are exactly right.

Taxpayer money pays for election assets (human and electronic).

I don't believe most Americans know how they've got taxation without representation, right down to the party level.

[JimDandy]

48. It blows my mind that US citizens spout off such nonsense

as in the above post. Civics classes used to be required in High School. We MUST get them back in the national curriculum.

[yallerdawg]

51. If you opt out, you let others choose for you.

Same as general election. If you don't vote, is that taxation without representation?

We live in a representative Republic, not a democracy.

If you want to have a say, participate!

[Bodych]

57. ?

We are advocating for open primaries, where independents can vote. Why is this so confusing?

Independents don't intend to register with a party, but they want a voice in WHO appears on their GE ballot.

If you don't want to give them that voice, then stop using their money to fund primaries. I'm a registered Democrat, and I know the rules not only in my state, but others. Some of them are flat out ridiculous (NY, for one), intentionally designed for voter suppression.

BTW:

When do you stop pretending that we live in a representative Republic instead of an oligarchy? Only when the Constitution is amended? Is that sorta like the declaration that we don't need no voting rights act because racial bigotry and suppression no longer exist?

[LiberalFighter]

77. Independents can vote in their own primary.

Nothing stops them from forming their own party.

[SunSeeker]

47. No one is stopping independents from joining a party.

It is their refusal to join a party that precludes them from participating in a party primary.

[Gman]

88. No. The party runs the primary

The state conducts the election. You file to run with the party. You draw names for ballot position with the party. The state counts the results.

As for one person one vote. The party is a private non-profit organization that makes its own rules as to who votes and in general, when.

[FrodosPet]

44. And they should be paid for by the parties, NOT the public

No one should be forced to pay for an election that they cannot participate in.

[SunSeeker]

49. They can participate if they join a party.

There are a lot of things my taxes pay for that I can't participate in.

[FrodosPet]

52. Sorry, I disagree

As someone else said, no taxation without representation.

[SunSeeker]

56. You are represented.

This is not taxation without representation. The representatives who tax you were duly elected. You do get to choose which party's nominee gets to represent you. If you want more of a say in who a party picks as their nominee, then join that party.

[FrodosPet]

63. If that's what the party wants to do, fine

But political parties are PRIVATE institutions. They should pay for closed primaries out of their own budget.

Should the taxpayers foot the bill for elections in the Kiwanis Club, the Elks Club, the Moose Lodge, or any other private organization?

[SunSeeker]

73. The Moose Lodge is not a political party that runs candidates for government office.

Closed primaries still allow any party to field candidates to be chosen by members of that party in the taxpayer funded primary election. It is your decision to not be a member of any party. The taxpayers subsidize primaries for parties since they serve an important function for our society (determining who the candidates will be from each party).

[LiberalFighter]

78. There is a difference from not being allowed to participate.

and having the ability to participate. The colonists had the former while voters today have the latter. Otherwise, people that never vote would also be considered in the same light as those not being allowed.

Those that never vote do so voluntarily.
Those that don't register to vote in a primary do so voluntarily.
It is involuntary when they are not allowed to vote under any circumstance.

[downeastdaniel]

30. Leave Paul outta this...Superdelagates are so undemocratic and backward...besides Paul is an R you

Know.

[Agnosticsherbet]

39. "Some Sanders supporters want the delegate allocation to occur this year" Changing the rules after

the elections held is so fucking Democratic.
(shouldn't be necessary, but...)

[Gore1FL]

64. The rules don't exist yet.

They are operating on those set in 2012.

http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/diary/5341/

[Agnosticsherbet]

66. Again, "Russell said that some Sanders supporters want the delegate allocation to occur this year."

That would not be the rules set in 1982, or those that worked up to this moment.

That is called changing the rules after the election is run.

I have no problem with eliminating them beginning in 2020, or establishing different rules for their allocation in 2020. I oppose changing it in this election.

[Gore1FL]

71. The rules for 2016 have not been written. They will be in summer 2016

We aren't re-writing the rules. They have yet to be written in the first place.

[LiberalFighter]

85. Any rules change will be for 2020

The rules have already been created and promulgated.
DNC 2016 Convention Call, Delegate Selection Rules & Regs

The delegates as a whole does not determine the rules that will be used. That is the domain of the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC. They are created by them and approved by the DNC members. Unless a delegate is a DNC member they don't vote on it. Even Democratic congressional members don't get to vote unless they are also a DNC member.

[Gore1FL]

92. From your link:

H. Rules Committee:
1. The Rules Committee shall issue a
report to the Democratic National
Convention recommending the
Permanent Rules of the Convention, the
Convention agenda, the permanent
officers of the Democratic National
Convention, amendments to the Charter
2016 Call for the Democratic National Convention
Page | 12
of the Democratic Party of the United
States, and resolutions providing for the
consideration of any other matter not
provided for in the Permanent Rules of
the Convention and not contained in the
reports of other standing committees.
The foregoing notwithstanding, no
amendment to the Charter of the
Democratic Party shall be effective
unless and until it is subsequently
ratified by a vote of the majority of the
entire membership of the Democratic
National Committee.

[LiberalFighter]

93. From your post.

The foregoing notwithstanding, no amendment to the Charter of the Democratic Party shall be effective unless and until it is subsequently ratified by a vote of the majority of the entire membership of the Democratic National Committee.

The DNC consists of State Party Chairs, Vice Chairs, and State DNC members. That numbers about 434 of the 715 current automatic delegates. The pledged delegates will not get a vote to ratify it. Current and past party leaders, Governors, and congressional members will not get a vote on it unless they are also a DNC member. For instance, Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii was a DNC member until she resigned her position so she could commit to Sanders.

[Gore1FL]

94. You seem to be arguing a different topic than what I am. nt

[LiberalFighter]

95. You originally responded about changing the rules for delegates.

[Gore1FL]

100. And that they could be changed. Not who could change them. nt

[Redness]

67. Critique of the private party argument and the openly anti-democratic argument

As I see it, there are two basic arguments for super-delegates:

Some point out that the Democratic primaries are not the general election. The problem with that argument is that the general election is in some ways even more rigged than the primaries. Barriers include discriminatory ballot access criteria, excessive ballot and debate access criteria, and the explicitly bipartisan composition of the electoral commission itself. When general elections are biased in favor of particular parties, the process as a whole can clearly only be said to be democratic if those parties have true intra-party democracy.

As for the "mob rule" argument, the republican argument, the necrocratic argument, it insists that, because the living fickly change their minds as the facts change, they should submit to the rule of the dead, whether it be the nation's dead founders, the capitalist's dead labor, or the party bosses' dead thought.

[Tarheel_Dem]

76. So they're repudiating the delegate system? Does this mean they repudiate the architect as well? nt

[TomCADem]

99. Trying to Shutdown Bernie.

nt

[desmiller]

102. I'll be satisfied if they eliminate the corporate lobbyists from the super delegate ranks, but...

I'll be extremely ecstatic if they destroy the super delegate system all together.