DNC changes rules on superdelegates

[Sarpedon]

One of the big beefs many have had with the DNC were the superdelegates: Party functionaries who played an outsize role in deciding presidential nominations. While I had mixed opinions about them, many were bitter that they were too powerful.

Now the DNC rules committee has responded to the criticisms, and have come up with a good compromise: Superdelegates will not vote on the first ballot, which means their votes will only be considered when there is not a clear winner of the popular vote, which is exactly how it should be.

Hopefully, this will get ratified by the full DNC. It will go a long way to rebuilding some trust.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dnc-superdelegates-vote-change_us_5b451df2e4b07aea7545118e

 

[fast]

Now the DNC rules committee has responded to the criticisms, and have come up with a good compromise: Superdelegates will not vote on the first ballot, which means their votes will only be considered when there is not a clear winner of the popular vote, which is exactly how it should be.

I'm not disagreeing with the "exactly how it should be" part, but I'm not sure how to articulate my thoughts without giving the unfortunate impression that I am disagreeing. Story of my life.

Anyhoots, systems (or way of doing things) evolve over time, and problems sometimes arise that call for tweaking the system to offset inequities. I'm operating under the assumption that no system is perfect. A point to be taken is that there's a skewing effect leading us to do things for the better (not so much as an objective transcendental fact) but as a means of compensating for internal system inadequacies.

So, I would amend your comment to perhaps more explicitly say that it's the way it should be given the system that's being utilized. Underlying that notion is the potential that the very thing we may currently hold as being the way things should be would instead itself be an inequity (or not so favorable move) had we been operating under a closer to perfect system.

For instance, if we had a system that negated the need for super delegates to begin with, then what you were alluding to might not be exactly the way things should be. Therein lies the rub. A potential retort would be to defend what you meant and that I was arguing for no good cause; however, where I'm going with all this as a precursor for sharing my thoughts speaks to the unfortunate direction of compromise. How could it be unfortunate one may justifiably ask, especially when the end result is all for the better?

This is where my original point gets kick started. There's only so many bandaids that keep a raft afloat. Isn't it about high time we burn the building down and start from scratch? All this making things better and all the feelings of good news brings thoughts of an old rundown vehicle being kept running. Maybe it's time for a new car.

This brings me full circle yet again. It's not how things should be, let alone exactly how things should be. Speaking this thus squarely puts me in the aise of those that may disagree with you, yet as I stated, I am not in disagreement--so long as you also endorse my qualification addendum ... which you may in fact agree with. Not sure.

Clear as mud, I'm sure, but hey, it's something.

 

[Sarpedon]

Right, I should say that if one has such a thing as superdelegates, then they should be used for tie-breaking only. I don't violently object to elected officials having some say in who gets nominated to a party either...after all, they are the ones who have to run down ballot to the guy (or gal).

So this change really eliminates my only objection to superdelegates. I think this system may very well be superior to one without them.

 

[Underseer]

One of the big beefs many have had with the DNC were the superdelegates: Party functionaries who played an outsize role in deciding presidential nominations. While I had mixed opinions about them, many were bitter that they were too powerful.

Now the DNC rules committee has responded to the criticisms, and have come up with a good compromise: Superdelegates will not vote on the first ballot, which means their votes will only be considered when there is not a clear winner of the popular vote, which is exactly how it should be.

Hopefully, this will get ratified by the full DNC. It will go a long way to rebuilding some trust.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dnc-superdelegates-vote-change_us_5b451df2e4b07aea7545118e

It's nothing more than a means for well-funded conservative Democrats to put their collective thumbs on the scales whenever a liberal Democratic candidate becomes too popular.

 

[Terrell]

What was the problem with the superdelegates? When was the last time that the SDs overturned the results of the primary elections? Barack Obama had more pledged delegates than HRC; HRC had more pledged delegates than Bernie Sanders. Sanders lost because HRC hammered him in the South among black voters. Pledged delegates are assigned based on popular vote results in each state. Did people really expect the SDs to give the nomination to Bernie after he lost the popular vote, lost the delegate count, and got blown out in the Southern primaries?

The real problem here was DWS putting her thumb on the scales. Her scheduling choices on debates would be an obvious example. Blaming the SDs doesn't fix this.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why does it matter if the SDs have tilted a nomination yet? The point is that they can, and that it is inherently anti-democratic, so hypocritical for the "Democratic" party.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Why does it matter if the SDs have tilted a nomination yet? The point is that they can, and that it is inherently anti-democratic, so hypocritical for the "Democratic" party.

Meh. Dems have always elected the canidate with the most votes. The EC has twice given the presidency to a republican with less popular votes. Far less votes. Seems to me that we should fix the EC first...

 

[prideandfall]

Why does it matter if the SDs have tilted a nomination yet? The point is that they can

yes, but that's literally the exact purpose of their function, so what's the issue?

and that it is inherently anti-democratic, so hypocritical for the "Democratic" party.

how so?
SDs were created for the specific purpose of having a stabilizing effect on the party nomination process so that vocal minority candidates didn't become the party nominee and get stomped in the general election.
also note that superdelegates count for about 15-20% of the total number of delegates within the DNC nominating process, so there is no way that even in a worst-case scenario that the superdelegates alone could override the will of the people and shoot down some mythic hero out of insider spite.
not that there really even could be a liberal equivalent of trump, but in the event that there ever was some outlier that didn't step in line with the party but got the nomination anyways, the SDs still couldn't stop that because they simply don't have enough vote power within the delegate total.

i don't think there's anything anti-democratic about having a check in place to protect against mass stupidity - in fact, i'd argue that it's actually pro-democratic in a pragmatic sense.

 

[Opoponax]

Why does it matter if the SDs have tilted a nomination yet? The point is that they can, and that it is inherently anti-democratic, so hypocritical for the "Democratic" party.

Meh. Dems have always elected the canidate with the most votes. The EC has twice given the presidency to a republican with less popular votes. Far less votes. Seems to me that we should fix the EC first...

Indeed. Hillary shellacked Bernie in actual votes, so I never understood what the big deal was. As for the EC, it's here to stay. So my POTUS vote will still only count for 1/3 of a Wyoming vote.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why does it matter if the SDs have tilted a nomination yet? The point is that they can, and that it is inherently anti-democratic, so hypocritical for the "Democratic" party.

Meh. Dems have always elected the canidate with the most votes. The EC has twice given the presidency to a republican with less popular votes. Far less votes. Seems to me that we should fix the EC first...

Why not fix both? And if the EC is hard to fix because Republicans won't go there, that isn't a problem for Superdelagates within the Democrat party.

- - - Updated - - -

i don't think there's anything anti-democratic about having a check in place to protect against mass stupidity - in fact, i'd argue that it's actually pro-democratic in a pragmatic sense.

Democratic to not go by the most votes? No, that's not democracy. It may be better than outright democracy to you, and you may be right, but it definitely less democratic.

 

[prideandfall]

Democratic to not go by the most votes? No, that's not democracy. It may be better than outright democracy to you, and you may be right, but it definitely less democratic.

eh, i mean it's an awful fine line... but i don't personally equate 'democratic' to 'pure mob rule' in a philosophical sense or in terms of practical government.
by all rights within that way of thinking, the emancipation proclamation was also anti-democratic but i can't help but feel that forcing fairness and equality on an unwilling public was in that case more true to the spirit of the intellectual idea of democracy than was the act of allowing the opinion of the majority to decide governmental policy.

 

[Mumbles]

Why does it matter if the SDs have tilted a nomination yet? The point is that they can, and that it is inherently anti-democratic, so hypocritical for the "Democratic" party.

Meh. Dems have always elected the canidate with the most votes. The EC has twice given the presidency to a republican with less popular votes. Far less votes. Seems to me that we should fix the EC first...

Indeed. Hillary shellacked Bernie in actual votes, so I never understood what the big deal was. As for the EC, it's here to stay. So my POTUS vote will still only count for 1/3 of a Wyoming vote.

As to superdelegates...

A good portion of Bernie's supporters got it in their heads that particular states shouldn't "count" as far as electing the nominee went, primarily states in the south. After the Wikileaks thing, this switched from needing the superdelegates to rush in and save Bernie from the popular vote and the normal delegates, both of which Hillary had won, to the Superdelegates somehow giving Clinton an insurmountable early lead as part of their effort to "rig" everything in her favor. The fact that Obama had overcome this exact same early superdelegate deficit was not addressed by this argument.

(I wouldn't be shocked if Sanders simply got a lot more support among first-timers who had little to no idea how to deal with his loss, how party politics operate, etc., but that's just the impression I got online...)

 

[Harry Bosch]

Indeed. Hillary shellacked Bernie in actual votes, so I never understood what the big deal was. As for the EC, it's here to stay. So my POTUS vote will still only count for 1/3 of a Wyoming vote.

As to superdelegates...

A good portion of Bernie's supporters got it in their heads that particular states shouldn't "count" as far as electing the nominee went, primarily states in the south. After the Wikileaks thing, this switched from needing the superdelegates to rush in and save Bernie from the popular vote and the normal delegates, both of which Hillary had won, to the Superdelegates somehow giving Clinton an insurmountable early lead as part of their effort to "rig" everything in her favor. The fact that Obama had overcome this exact same early superdelegate deficit was not addressed by this argument.

(I wouldn't be shocked if Sanders simply got a lot more support among first-timers who had little to no idea how to deal with his loss, how party politics operate, etc., but that's just the impression I got online...)

This was what Putin created in order to depress the democratic voter turnout. It worked pretty well.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Democratic to not go by the most votes? No, that's not democracy. It may be better than outright democracy to you, and you may be right, but it definitely less democratic.

eh, i mean it's an awful fine line... but i don't personally equate 'democratic' to 'pure mob rule' in a philosophical sense or in terms of practical government.
by all rights within that way of thinking, the emancipation proclamation was also anti-democratic but i can't help but feel that forcing fairness and equality on an unwilling public was in that case more true to the spirit of the intellectual idea of democracy than was the act of allowing the opinion of the majority to decide governmental policy.

Ah that explains our disconnect. I do equate democracy to mob rule, or rule of the majority. I believe that is why the country isn't a democracy, but a republic.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As for Bernie vs Hillary, Hillary won. If she won fairly is another question, given the allegations of the DNC stacking everything in her favour and expecting a coronation for her, but she did win. She then lost the general due to the electoral college. Her over confidence and sense of entitlement were a huge factor in her loss, and it was highlighted in her race with Bernie.

 

[Sarpedon]

I agree that it was not that Bernie could have beat Hillary, its that because of DNC machinations, Bernie was the only one who could run against her, being an independent. I do remember there were a couple of others, but they were obviously ringers selected to give a credence of a fair fight.

Hilary was a weak candidate, and everyone should have known that when she lost to Barack Obama. When a known candidate loses to an unknown, that means that people don't like what they know.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hilary was a weak candidate, and everyone should have known that when she lost to Barack Obama. When a known candidate loses to an unknown, that means that people don't like what they know.

They should have known it well before that. She has been demonized by the right for decades, is known for being a corporate democrat who takes tons of money from corrupting interests (she took more than Trump did), speaks nowhere near as well as Obama or her husband, and had a sense of entitlement as reflected in her campaign slogan "I'm with her" (instead of "She's with us"). The fact that she is a woman probably drew some misogynist ire, but I would strongly bet that her pushing of her gender and "breaking barriers" and her friends statement that "there is a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hillary" (because she has a vagina) did considerably more damage.

She was a historically weak candidate and it should have been seen from far far far away, but it wasn't because people were blinded by PC hysteria. Trump being a PC nightmare only amplified that blinding. People thought his uncouth words would doom him, and became more overconfident based on that, to the point that Hillary didn't even visit the rust belt states that lost her the election, assuming she had them in the bag. The perception she created was that she stood for nothing but "I'm a woman", "Its my turn", and "I'm not him" and most of her speeches were empty platitudes without meaning in contrast to Bernie's constant drumbeat of policy (radical as some may have found it). Trump at least talked the talk. He was lying, but he talked like a populist.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes, thank you for your infomercial. I'm more interested in pointing out that promoting a robust competition will turn out stronger candidates than I am in bashing Hilary.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I do remember there were a couple of others, but they were obviously ringers selected to give a credence of a fair fight.

You mean Lincoln Chafe wasn't a strong contender?

"The Glass-Steagall was my very first vote, I'd just arrived, my dad had died in office," Chafee said. "I just arrived to Senate. I think we get some takeovers and that was one. It was my very first vote, and it was 95, 90 to 5. The record."

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, thank you for your infomercial. I'm more interested in pointing out that promoting a robust competition will turn out stronger candidates than I am in bashing Hilary.

The Republicans had a whole bunch of candidates and Trump still won.

 

[Sarpedon]

A bunch of losers. That election will be remembered for the poor quality of the candidates. The Republicans really didn't have anyone credible. The Democrats might have if they all hadn't decided or been pressured to step aside for Hilary.