2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumEvery superdelegate should support whichever candidate wins the most total popular votes nationally.
Obviously the candidate who wins the most total national popular votes should win the nomination; why should a vote in one state be worth less than a vote in a different state? Any superdelegate who wants to support this basic democratic principle should vote for whichever candidate wins the total national popular vote, thereby supporting the will of the people.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Skink
(10,122 posts)They like to be undemocratic
floriduck
(2,262 posts)That way the SD would be more inclined to spread the wealth around, according to their constituent's desires.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)or would you prefer the election to be decided by the national popular vote?
floriduck
(2,262 posts)A popular vote disproportionately favors bigger population states. And it would hurt places like Rhode Island, Wyoming and others. So I guess the electoral college gives equal distribution to every state.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)The national popular vote doesn't disproportionately favor any state, as states are irrelevant. Whereas the electoral college disproportionately favors smaller states since every state has exactly 2 Senators, and the number of electors is based on the total number of Senators plus Representatives. So, even though California has something like 70 times as many people as Wyoming, it only has about 18 times as many electors. How the hell that's considered fair is beyond me.
The other problem with the current system is that winning a state by 1 measly vote garners the 'winner' *all* of that state's electors. In the same way quite a few of the Republican primaries are winner-take-all.
Of course, the POTUS is almost always the candidate who won the popular vote (2000/Bush v Gore was a rarity). Still, the fact that it *can* happen is reason enough to do away with the electoral college, as far as I'm concerned.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)Having less say in the decision than a California or New York or Texas. That's why I prefaced my answer by saying I have mixed feelings on this. Neither approach is truly fair. The House of Reps grows according to population. But the Senate is limited to two. Not sure how we make it better without limiting or excluding some parts of the country.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)The current system disproportionately favors the smallest states (see my Wyoming vs California example). How would going by the national popular vote disproportionately favor any state, large or small? It wouldn't. The national popular vote would ignore arbitrary state lines. A vote from someone who lives in Wyoming would carry just as much weight as a vote from someone who lives in California, whereas currently the vote from the person living in Wyoming carries more weight than the vote of the person who lives in California.
Going by the national popular vote, the winner is simply the person who got the most votes, period.
CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)So yeah, sure, let's bind them by state. Clinton still retains the advantage, but if it will shut you folks up, it will be worth it.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)If all candidates knew the rules going in, it would enable them to strategize accordingly.
CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)Clinton more than Sanders. She's won the biggest states that also have the most super-delegates. If they were all bound to vote for her because she won her state, she'd still come out ahead.
I agree, you don't change rules mid-process. And Sanders can't pretend not to know how super-delegates function, considering that 1) he is himself a super-delegate and 2) his campaign strategist Tad Devine helped develop and implement the super-delegate system back in the day. (How someone invents super-delegates and then fails to remember how they function is something Tad Devine will have to answer for eventually. Then again, he's 0-for-5 on presidential campaigns in his career, so maybe he won't.)
In their zeal, Sanders' fans are proposing changes that would actually hurt their own candidate. And despite this kind of openly ridiculous and questionable behavior, they still wonder why they're not attracting more support. SMH
floriduck
(2,262 posts)My decision is to enable more Democrats to vote in every election. And if that results in someone being elected that is not my first choice, then so be it. That is another reason I support eliminating the caucus system. And I was my precinct's chairperson. I'd gladly give it up so more Washingtonians could have a say in the process.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)Added no snark nor insult, unlike your response back. No need for the added commentary since I gave you my honest answer.
But have a good day, just the same.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)My comment related to if today's rules were to change going forward. I understand the candidates know the rules today. If the rules change, they will adjust accordingly. And they will strategize accordingly. I thought my answer was self-explanatory. Apparently not so much.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)As has been pointed out, having the superdelegates support the candidate who won their state wouldn't make much difference, so I don't think there'd be any altering of strategy.
Anyway, it's a stupid proposal. For one thing, it doesn't take into account the margin of victory. Let's say a state has 10 superdelegates. If Candidate A beats Candidate B in that state 50.1% to 49.9%, why should Candidate A get the support of all 10 superdelegates?
floriduck
(2,262 posts)The proportionate distribution is fair. Thus your example would likely result in a 6-4 or 5-5 split. In my scenario, margin of victory is very important.
LiberalFighter
(51,094 posts)Grayson claimed he made his decision based on a vote of voters in Florida. Which is ridiculous method. If he was credulous he would had made that decision based on the outcome of his congressional district which Clinton won. Or as many others have demanded based on the results of the state in which Clinton also won. Clinton in fact got more delegates in every congressional district in Florida except for two that both ended up with 2 delegates.
Yavin4
(35,446 posts)Since Hillary won Mass.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Who knew?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Already, the pledged delegates are not equal. A vote in one state is valued more than another, depending on the number of delegates from each state and the number of voters.
We don't nominate on popular vote.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)certainly fairer than superdelegates randomly supporting a candidate on a whim. By casting their votes according to the popular vote the superdelegates would be improving the fairness of the system rather than detracting from it.
It would certainly be very hard to argue against a superdelegate who announced that they were casting their vote in accordance with the popular vote, in order to respect the democratically expressed wishes of the entire electorate.
thesquanderer
(11,992 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 28, 2016, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)
re:
What about casting their vote in accordance with the popular vote in their own home state, in order to respect the democratically expressed wishes of their particular electorate?
What about casting their vote with an eye toward who is more likely to win in November (based on the best information available at that time), since that is the over-riding goal of the party that the super delegates are designed to serve, and likely what most of the Dem voters would want regardless of which Dem candidate they had voted for, perhaps many months earlier when circumstances may have been different?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)If we decided the primary on popular vote, fine. Superdelegates would be irrelevant, the popular vote would govern. To get there, though, we'd have to do away with caucuses altogether. And the supers should just go as well.
As it is now, a super going based on popular vote, in the current system which includes caucuses, would be just as much as a whim as any other reason a super votes. If they have to follow the pop vote, they are irrelevant. If they are given unfettered discretion, they are undemocratic and on a whim.
Either way, we don't fucking need them.
gordianot
(15,245 posts)I wonder whose supporters have adopted the popular vote line?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)It's states that are valued differently, as they should be. More people means more delegates.
LiberalFighter
(51,094 posts)Delegates are determined by the average votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate of the last 3 elections. There are states that have more delegates than states with less population.
It is weighting states based on whether they are blue or red by election results and the change from other elections. States can have fewer delegates the following election because there is a significant drop-off in votes.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)It isn't based on the number of overall persons but it's more or less based on the number of Democrats. Roughly. As you point out, it has to do with how many voters in the state supported the Democratic nominee over the previous few elections.
So, there's a fairly strong correlation between the number of Democrats a state has and the number of delegates that state is awarded.
LiberalFighter
(51,094 posts)don't have the delegate strength they could have if they were blue states.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)So, many of those states still have quite a few delegates. Most of those Deep South states pale in comparison to other states when it comes to "redness."
Look no further than Romney's margin of victory in the 24 states he carried in 2012:
1) Utah: 48 points
2) Wyoming: 41 points
3) Oklahoma: 34 points
4) Idaho: 32 points
5) West Virginia: 27 points
6) Arkansas: 24 points
7) Nebraska: 23 points
8) Kentucky: 22 points (22.7)
9) Alabama: 22 points (22.3)
10) Kansas: 22 points (22.2)
11) Tennessee: 20 points (20.5)
12) North Dakota: 20 points (19.8)
13) South Dakota: 18 points
14) Louisiana: 17 points
15) Texas: 16 points
16) Alaska: 14 points (14.0)
17) Montana: 14 points (13.5)
18) Mississippi: 12 points
19) South Carolina: 11 points (10.6)
20) Indiana: 11 points (10.5)
21) Arizona: 10 points (10.1)
22) Missouri: 10 points (9.6)
23) Georgia: 8 points
24) North Carolina: 2 points
LiberalFighter
(51,094 posts)with similar population. i.e. New York has more delegates than Texas even though Texas has a higher population. States are weighted based on past election performance.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)But there are "red" states with more delegates than some "blue" states due to those "red" states having far more Democrats/people. I don't think we're disagreeing about anything.
Of course, there are no purely "red" or purely "blue" states. One of the things that makes the Clinton-Dixie meme so silly is that it's actually Sanders who is most reliant on "red" areas (such as rural and suburban parts of Missouri, as opposed to St. Louis and Kansas City).
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)How states voted in previous presidential elections impacts how many delegates that state has. But a "red" state with 5 million Democrats will understandably have more delegates than a "blue" state with only 1 million Democrats.
Every state is some mix of red and blue that is ever-changing. And state lines are arbitrary. Personally, I'm all for a national primary and I'm all for the national popular vote determining who becomes POTUS.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If we're going to have states matter in the election of a national-level office (which we shouldn't: the president should be directly elected), then I think any state's superdelegates should go to that state's popular vote winner. That would reflect the GE process, with the SDs acting as Electors, only with only a partial say in the final outcome.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)vote as a primary metric best be ready to argue with very pointed quotes from Obama, Plouffe, Axelrod and others. They mocked the very idea and mocked it well.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)When you have some open primaries, partial, closed and caucuses - you get a mixed bag of turnout. Then you have to factor in suppression that can occur in any number of ways. IL running out of ballots, stoping registrations, and closing polls defying court orders, Arizona a with extremely limited locations, states like Wisc and I Think NC with restrictive voter ID laws. Even party rules limiting changes.
So we go by a PD system, and within that a candidate must meet a minimum requirement of viability (15%). Not just by state but by delegate districts within the state.
Our party assigns PDs based on participation and party support.
As for the Supers, if I was a Representative for a district that went overwhelmingly for Bernie or Hillary, and I voted against them, I might run the risk of facing a challenger supported by their interests next time around, because I failed to support them when it mattered. Because of the voting power a super delegate carries against the weight of a pledged delegate, a SuperDelegate can easily silence the voices of his district with his vote, which is why it matters what they do.
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)just to ensure the desired results....
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)
Vinca
(50,304 posts)Isn't that what you meant to say?
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Or caucuses, or anything else. We'll just hold a big national election, with no debates and no campaigning, and we'll have our nominee. How democratic.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Of course have debates and campaigning, and then have a national primary. Candidates above a certain threshold would advance and there could be another national primary following a couple more months of campaigning. And perhaps there could be a 3rd round. That gives the underdog(s) plenty of time to make the rounds and get their message out.
If you don't, at some point, force some candidates to drop out, you potentially end up with a nominee who didn't come anywhere close to winning a majority (and that person is most often going to be the person who started out as the frontrunner, since the various alternatives to the frontrunner tend to split the vote).
Why should IA and NH or any other single state hold so much sway?
And I would have the primaries take place over the course of at least 3 days so as to increase turnout. Have polls open for 72 straight hours to accommodate different schedules.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)It gives a shot for an upstart, insurgent, etc. to break in and mix things up. This is why we have Sanders and Trump, instead of the "party approved" candidates. Obviously, there is some risk involved when the process veers off into unknown territory. There are positives and negatives to any process, of course, but I kind of like the semi-chaotic mix of open and closed primaries, open and closed caucuses, and whatever else I can't think of right now. We get to see how candidates operate under different circumstances.
stone space
(6,498 posts)For example, any number that one would attribute to Iowa would be a made-up statistic, since no such popular vote total even exists for my state.
In a 2 person race, I would expect the Supers (as a group, not necessarily individually) to vote in such a way so as to not change the result from whoever wins the pledged delegate count.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)There are too many people complaining that they have voted one way for many years and check their party affiliation with the county and they are either not in the system or they have changed their party in many states. Now in NY and elsewhere! I am sick and tired of this corruption. Bernie was denied votes in many of the states Hillary won. And damn it don't ask me for a link. It's all over the net.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)And these discussions highlight the reasons why.
pampango
(24,692 posts)system to use in the future? My answer might differ depending.
Most of is have an ingrained distrust of the role played by superdelegates but can overcome that if they 'see the light' and support my candidate even if he or she did not have more votes or pledged delegates. In that scenario, superdelegates become "wise party leaders doing what is best for our party and our country." 
