DNC

kimmiinthemitten

VarunaTT said:

The superdelegates don't represent anything but the majority will of the Party.  They were set up that way b/c in 1968, the backdealing Dems put up a presidential candidate that never ran in the primaries.  It's to ensure that that can't happen again.  The Party chooses who their candidate is.  I tend to think open primaries are the wrong thing to do.  Primaries should be closed, with an Independent ballot available for informational purposes and/or other candidates that don't want to run with a specific party platform.

I don't think you have to like it, but the conversation needs to be "what is a better system to ensure democratic votes to the most people."  And part of that conversation is the responsibility of the people.

I agree with all of this except for super delegates. Again, there's no reason for them, especially not an almost 50 year old fubar.  The republicans don't have them and somehow the popular vote won, despite zero support from the party leadership. 

charlotte989875

So I think the republicans are feeling the effects of not having super delegates. You can end up with a Trump candidate that many party officials (and party elders) refuse to enforced/don't support. A strong super delegate system would have produced a different candidate for the RNC. But then you get a candidate the party wants, which might not be who the people want. 

But the super delegate system the democrats uses clearly has faults, like having delegates unbound and being able to vote for who they want rather than who their state votes with. 

kimmiinthemitten

charlotte989875 said:

So I think the republicans are feeling the effects of not having super delegates. You can end up with a Trump candidate that many party officials (and party elders) refuse to enforced/don't support. A strong super delegate system would have produced a different candidate for the RNC. But then you get a candidate the party wants, which might not be who the people want. 

But the super delegate system the democrats uses clearly has faults, like having delegates unbound and being able to vote for who they want rather than who their state votes with. 

I'd still rather have the misplaced will of the people over the misplaced will of the political elite. 

VarunaTT

Superdelegates represent people.  We're a representative democracy.  And "The People"?  Kinda suck a majority of the time.  If the people had their way, we'd probably still be living in a segregated society, same-sex marriage wouldn't be legalized, women may or may not have the right to vote, and loads of other things that The People voted into place or refused to allow to happen.

Superdelegates provide the check and balance that's necessary in any organization lest it fall to the "tyranny of the majority".

kimmiinthemitten

I imagine this is what the California/Oregon/Bernie or Bust delegates look like when the President called them out, but not by name: