Current Events > DNC could cut number of Super Delegates by more than half

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/09/569676712/dnc-group-calls-for-drastic-cut-in-superdelegates-as-part-of-nomination-process

Tl;dr:

Its been proposed that 60% of super delegates are removed from the DNC voting process.

It still needs to be voted on to actually happen, but hey, I'll take it.

Would prefer if it were 100% though. The whole super delegate system is bull. >_>
---

well it's a start but the logical thing to to would be remove all of them. Democracy and what not.
---

Good. That's screwing them. And when they get back into power, they need to do lots of changes to ensure this shit never happens again. FCC needs a reboot. EPA needs a reboot. Education will need a reboot.
---

this is a very DNC attempt at fixing the problem
---

DNC's 3/5ths Compromise: "we've heard your complaints about our superdelegate system, so instead of eliminating it entirely, we'll consider getting rid of 3/5ths of them."
---

AlisLandale posted...

The whole super delegate system is bull.

Guarantee that because of how the Democrats run their primaries, no super delegates means super brokered convention.
---

Anteaterking posted...

AlisLandale posted...

The whole super delegate system is bull.

Guarantee that because of how the Democrats run their primaries, no super delegates means super brokered convention.

Not really an argument against, though.

"That poop smells bad."

"But it covers up the smell of that roadkill."

>_>
---

AlisLandale posted...

Not really an argument against, though.

"That poop smells bad."

"But it covers up the smell of that roadkill."

>_>

It depends on what you think the role of a primary is. If you think the role is to produce the best candidate for the party, then you don't want to have brokered conventions.

I suppose if you view primaries as essentially a "run-off" election with the November election being the second round, then maybe that doesn't matter.
---

Friendly Reminder: super delegates have not changed the outcome of any modern dnc

Let me guess... the ones they get rid of will be the ones that didn't support Hillary.
---

lilORANG posted...

well it's a start but the logical thing to to would be remove all of them. Democracy and what not.

the DNC doing something logical...good one.
---

jumi posted...

Let me guess... the ones they get rid of will be the ones that didn't support Hillary.

I could see that heh.
---

CruelBuffalo posted...

Friendly Reminder: super delegates have not changed the outcome of any modern dnc

All the more reason to get rid of them.
---

My hot take is that they should get rid of delegates and move to a national popular vote, but I figure there are practicality issues with that idea.
---

CruelBuffalo posted...

Friendly Reminder: super delegates have not changed the outcome of any modern dnc

Its more about how the super delagates are played than who they actually vote for.

Having a bunch of delegates say, before most people even have a chance to vote, "this is who we're voting for", its definitely going to influence things.
---

Hahahahah do any of you actually think the DNC is going to give up the power to pick the candidates and tell Democratic Party voters to get stuffed? Yeah right.
---

AlisLandale posted...

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/09/569676712/dnc-group-calls-for-drastic-cut-in-superdelegates-as-part-of-nomination-process

Tl;dr:

Its been proposed that 60% of super delegates are removed from the DNC voting process.

It still needs to be voted on to actually happen, but hey, I'll take it.

Would prefer if it were 100% though. The whole super delegate system is bull. >_>

They need a tiebreaker system that isn't just a small amount of people or a coinflip.
---

r4X0r posted...

Hahahahah do any of you actually think the DNC is going to give up the power to pick the candidates and tell Democratic Party voters to get stuffed? Yeah right.

They don't need the super delegates for that. They have already come out and said that if they want they can just go to a back room and smoke cigars while picking who the candidate is and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them.
---

AlisLandale posted...

Its more about how the super delagates are played than who they actually vote for.

Having a bunch of delegates say, before most people even have a chance to vote, "this is who we're voting for", its definitely going to influence things.

Do you think a system without super delegates is also one without endorsements?
---

I think instead of getting rid of them just give them all to the GOP, as bad as the politicians are, their voters are even worse and can't be trusted.
---

CarlGrimes posted...

r4X0r posted...

Hahahahah do any of you actually think the DNC is going to give up the power to pick the candidates and tell Democratic Party voters to get stuffed? Yeah right.

They don't need the super delegates for that. They have already come out and said that if they want they can just go to a back room and smoke cigars while picking who the candidate is and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them.

Then they give up the facade of being "for the people" and "democratic" so no not really.

Funny thing is that the Republicans have the democratic Primaries.

Anyway yes they want a half measure after the Hillary/Bernie fiasco, but it's stupid to bother with delegates and especially superdelegates. Anyway since the average American is likely smarter than the average politician at this point (see:Republican party) it would be best to let Americans have the say in who gets in imo.

Cheater87 posted...

jumi posted...

Let me guess... the ones they get rid of will be the ones that didn't support Hillary.

I could see that heh.

That would be all of them. The super delegates were clearly bought out to support Hillary, giving her something like 51% of the vote, whereas Bernie clearly had the popular vote.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Funny thing is that the Republicans have the democratic Primaries.

Lol and we see how thats worked out...
---

nicklebro posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Funny thing is that the Republicans have the democratic Primaries.

Lol and we see how thats worked out...

Yeah not so good, but if the Democrats hadn't gone corrupt themselves they'd have had the election in the bag. Now it's too late though. Everyone's skeletons are out of the closets and the Republicans just want to run the country into the gutter and don't give a fuck who knows it.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

nicklebro posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Funny thing is that the Republicans have the democratic Primaries.

Lol and we see how thats worked out...

Yeah not so good, but if the Democrats hadn't gone corrupt themselves they'd have had the election in the bag. Now it's too late though. Everyone's skeletons are out of the closets and the Republicans just want to run the country into the gutter and don't give a fuck who knows it.

Idk if Bernie would have won, but I'm with you on the rest.
---

nicklebro posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

nicklebro posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Funny thing is that the Republicans have the democratic Primaries.

Lol and we see how thats worked out...

Yeah not so good, but if the Democrats hadn't gone corrupt themselves they'd have had the election in the bag. Now it's too late though. Everyone's skeletons are out of the closets and the Republicans just want to run the country into the gutter and don't give a fuck who knows it.

Idk if Bernie would have won, but I'm with you on the rest.

Admittedly things would be very different so there's no knowing who could have been president had the DNC not been doing this. But if the field were even it's highly unlikely Trump would have gotten votes over anybody else, even if it was an honest Hillary. Try imagining that.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

honest Hillary.

Does not compute. Is that another language?
---

I like how easy it is to pick out the Trump garglers in these topics
---

Paragon21XX posted...

DNC's 3/5ths Compromise: "we've heard your complaints about our superdelegate system, so instead of eliminating it entirely, we'll consider getting rid of 3/5ths of them."

Lmao
---

I don't get why this matters, Hillary won the popular vote for her primary anyways.
---

That's a very EA solution to a problem.

If you agree that superdelegates are an issue, which you must agree or you weren't contemplating getting rid of a significant amount of them, then why are you not getting rid of them.

But the headline people will hear is that the DNC is "working on its problems" which will be good enough for many people.

Tropicalwood posted...

I don't get why this matters, Hillary won the popular vote for her primary anyways.

Sure she did.
---

CarlGrimes posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

I don't get why this matters, Hillary won the popular vote for her primary anyways.

Sure she did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
Over three million votes, or are you saying she has three million fraudulent votes.
---

Tropicalwood posted...

CarlGrimes posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

I don't get why this matters, Hillary won the popular vote for her primary anyways.

Sure she did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
Over three million votes, or are you saying she has three million fraudulent votes.

What I am saying is we know that the DNC was being funded by Hillary, Hillary put her people in key positions, and the DNC showed an obvious bias during the whole primary. It was all rigged.
---

CarlGrimes posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

CarlGrimes posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

I don't get why this matters, Hillary won the popular vote for her primary anyways.

Sure she did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
Over three million votes, or are you saying she has three million fraudulent votes.

What I am saying is we know that the DNC was being funded by Hillary, Hillary put her people in key positions, and the DNC showed an obvious bias during the whole primary. It was all rigged.

You don't understand what the definition of rigged is. The game wasn't rigged. It was off balance and biased, but Bernie still could have won. So while it was definitely shitty and disappointing, it wasn't rigged and no one cheated
---

Anteaterking posted...

Do you think a system without super delegates is also one without endorsements?

Endorsements don't typically directly translate into votes. It wouldn't be dissimilar to certain state goverments coming out and saying, "Screw the people, all our electoral votes are going to X candidate".

That state alone wouldn't be enough to turn an election under normal circumstances, but seeing that early-race handicap is going to have a more significant impact than "so and so said he supports so and so."

And in any event, getting rid of them would be a first step to courting the idealistic "the system is broke" types who bounced when Bernie lost. Give the people the feeling that they actually have a voice, and they'll be more inclined to participate.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

That's a very EA solution to a problem.

If you agree that superdelegates are an issue, which you must agree or you weren't contemplating getting rid of a significant amount of them, then why are you not getting rid of them.

But the headline people will hear is that the DNC is "working on its problems" which will be good enough for many people.

I agree. But given their track record, I'll take "some progress" over none at all. An optimistic outlook would be that they'll pay attention to the reactions to this, and if it's successful, we could see a complete removal down the road.
---

AlisLandale posted...

Endorsements don't typically directly translate into votes. It wouldn't be dissimilar to certain state goverments coming out and saying, "Screw the people, all our electoral votes are going to X candidate".

That state alone wouldn't be enough to turn an election under normal circumstances, but seeing that early-race handicap is going to have a more significant impact than "so and so said he supports so and so."

And in any event, getting rid of them would be a first step to courting the idealistic "the system is broke" types who bounced when Bernie lost. Give the people the feeling that they actually have a voice, and they'll be more inclined to participate.

Part of the problem here isn't with the DNC but rather the media that propagates the "superdelegate hunt". The DNC repeatedly said during the previous primary season that superdelegates don't count until the convention, please don't put them in your totals, etc. but the media likes showing them.

Also, there has never been evidence to suggest that the "My candidate is losing by a lot, I guess I won't vote" effect has a stronger effect than the "My candidate is winning by a lot, I guess I won't vote" effect. In addition, even if you didn't have super delegates that effect is still present in polls instead. People tend to gravitate towards the candidates who are in the top echelon of the polls.
---

CruelBuffalo posted...

Friendly Reminder: super delegates have not changed the outcome of any modern dnc

Yes they have. The 2016 election.
---

Super Dels aren't the problem, ideological purists and identity politics is. That is what's killing the left and by extension, the Dems.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Super Dels aren't the problem, ideological purists and identity politics is. That is what's killing the left and by extension, the Dems.

We shall accept nothing less than a full ban on guns, every Muslim in the world receiving a green card, and abortions shall be added as an item on your local McDonald's dollar menu.

Take it or leave it.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Super Dels aren't the problem, ideological purists and identity politics is. That is what's killing the left and by extension, the Dems.

So I guess that's mean Immaturity and good old fashioned ignorance are what's killing the Republicans? Because they literally just elected Donald Trump lmao and are about to elect a pedophile.
---

nicklebro posted...

So I guess that's mean Immaturity and good old fashioned ignorance are what's killing the Republicans?

Actually that seems to be what's fueling them. I mean, they're morally dead but clearly a successful political party.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

nicklebro posted...

So I guess that's mean Immaturity and good old fashioned ignorance are what's killing the Republicans?

Actually that seems to be what's fueling them. I mean, they're morally dead but clearly a successful political party.

Depends what you mean by successful. I mean first of all, they're not anymore successful than usual when it comes to elections, they're simply on the upswing of the pendulum, hell they haven't even secured a second term for Trump yet. But that's only if you judge success by election results. Over the past ten (or twenty) years Democrats have accomplished far more than Republicans and also furthered the liberal agenda an incredible amount, especially when it comes to social issues, as opposed to Republicans who haven't really done anything even with all three branches of government.

Then you realize Trump isn't a Republican at all And you see that the Republican party had been coopted by an incompetent conman and Fox News' control over conservative voters has gotten so out of control that they now have more influence than the GOP establishment, who finds themselves at odds with their own constituents.
---