Superdelegates and how one state is ending its rigged system once and for all

Free

How One State Ended its 'Rigged' Superdelegate System Once and For All

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/07/how-one-state-ended-its-rigged-superdelegate-system-once-and-all

Frustrated by what they describe as a "rigged" electoral system in the face of Bernie Sanders' overwhelming majority win, Democrats in Maine on Saturday voted to adopt a rule change that will essentially eliminate the power of superdelegates to pick a candidate of their choosing.

Though Sanders won 64 percent of the Maine vote, he has only received one of the state's five superdelegates. Three have endorsed Hillary Clinton, who only secured 35 percent of the popular vote, while one remains undeclared.

The amendment to the state convention includes language that strongly encourages superdelegates to vote in proportion to caucus results, which reports say could prompt a "fight" on the Democratic convention floor in July.

As of 2020, however, the legislation "has teeth," AP reports, as the party chair will then be required to "account for superdelegates' preferences to ensure the overall delegate makeup matches the outcome of the caucus or primary."

"We have a system of government where you have one person, one vote, by and large," state Rep. Diane Russell, who introduced the measure, told the Bangor Daily News ahead of the vote. "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."

On Saturday, Russell shared images of the "wicked long line" to debate the rule. Democrat Brigham McNaughton of Freeport "received a rowdy ovation when he described a 'rigged system' in which five superdelegates defy the will of rank-and-file Democrats in Maine," according to AP.

Though for years the Democratic Party's superdelegate system has been criticized for being undemocratic, Sanders' candidacy has prompted serious calls for change, particularly in places like Maine—where party elites continue to support Hillary Clinton despite the overwhelming popular support for Sanders, as Russell explained in an interview with the Washington Post.

"I think the difference is that this time, when you win by that margin and then your delegates don't shift dramatically...it's really having an impact on people's desire to participate in the process," she said.

Russell continued:

When you tell people they should get out to vote, and then they do, and then they can't trust the results of the vote, what's the point of getting out to vote? If people feel like their candidate lost, but they lost squarely, they can live with that. I think it's when you see the impact so clearly, and you don't feel like your candidate lost, then it's hard to be motivated to support the other candidate.

"At a time when we should be unifying the party and celebrating our vision, we are, in fact, seeing a real division," the representative from Portland added. "We're losing people who were working-class because we are not answering and giving credence to the grassroots."

brianlux

Right on. Maine. Now lets gives those delegates back to Bernie!

gimmesometruth27

i will congratulate maine when they do something useful, like get rid of that embarrassment of a governor of theirs.

Free

gimmesometruth27 said:

i will congratulate maine when they do something useful, like get rid of that embarrassment of a governor of theirs.

Really. Standards a bit high, don't you think?

PJ_Soul

gimmesometruth27 said:

i will congratulate maine when they do something useful, like get rid of that embarrassment of a governor of theirs.

Don't you think electoral reform is useful?

gimmesometruth27

PJ_Soul said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i will congratulate maine when they do something useful, like get rid of that embarrassment of a governor of theirs.

Don't you think electoral reform is useful?

depends on the reform.

PJ_Soul

gimmesometruth27 said:

PJ_Soul said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i will congratulate maine when they do something useful, like get rid of that embarrassment of a governor of theirs.

Don't you think electoral reform is useful?

depends on the reform.

So you think this particular reform is useless?

HughFreakingDillon

I can't understand the sheer idiocy of backing a candidate that does not have the popular vote.

ckravitz

HughFreakingDillon said:

I can't understand the sheer idiocy of backing a candidate that does not have the popular vote.

Political parties can make whatever rules they want. In fact up until 50 years ago there was no primary, the parties just put forth who they wanted to run in the general. The idea is that if you don't like the rules of a party you are free to join or start another one or run as an independent. I personally find the superdelegate system to be silly, but it's the party's absolute right to make their system of candidate selection be whatever they want it to be. If that runs contrary to what the voters want, well, the party will ultimately pay the price. The reality is that primary voter turnout is so poor that it's not even close to representative anyway.

Free

ckravitz said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I can't understand the sheer idiocy of backing a candidate that does not have the popular vote.

Political parties can make whatever rules they want. In fact up until 50 years ago there was no primary, the parties just put forth who they wanted to run in the general. The idea is that if you don't like the rules of a party you are free to join or start another one or run as an independent. I personally find the superdelegate system to be silly, but it's the party's absolute right to make their system of candidate selection be whatever they want it to be. If that runs contrary to what the voters want, well, the party will ultimately pay the price. The reality is that primary voter turnout is so poor that it's not even close to representative anyway.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz said herself that the reason there is superdelegates is to prevent a grassroots candidate from rising about the establishment candidate, regardless of what the people of this country want. That is proof that this election is entirely rigged.

But there's hope yet. Maine pased law recently to get rid of superdelegates to ensure that the majority voteof the people is above that of a paid political endorsement. And it's spreading. Just today I read Alaska plans to do the same.

Free

http://www.ktva.com/on-third-day-of-convention-alaska-democrats-call-for-end-to-super-delegates-989/

FinsburyParkCarrots

"As of 2020, however, the legislation "has teeth," AP reports, as the party chair will then be required to "account for superdelegates' preferences to ensure the overall delegate makeup matches the outcome of the caucus or primary."

Let's just sit it out, folks

Jason P

HughFreakingDillon

ckravitz said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I can't understand the sheer idiocy of backing a candidate that does not have the popular vote.

Political parties can make whatever rules they want. In fact up until 50 years ago there was no primary, the parties just put forth who they wanted to run in the general. The idea is that if you don't like the rules of a party you are free to join or start another one or run as an independent. I personally find the superdelegate system to be silly, but it's the party's absolute right to make their system of candidate selection be whatever they want it to be. If that runs contrary to what the voters want, well, the party will ultimately pay the price. The reality is that primary voter turnout is so poor that it's not even close to representative anyway.

of course they can. that's how it's done in canada. the party has a vote internally of who they want their candidate to be. I wasn't saying they shouldn't be this way, I was wondering why they'd want to back someone who isn't the most popular to the voters.

HesCalledDyer

The whole delegate, super delegate, electorate process needs to go away. Popular vote should be the end all, be all determination of who wins.

Free

Any Hillary supporter want to comment?

ckravitz

HughFreakingDillon said:

ckravitz said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I can't understand the sheer idiocy of backing a candidate that does not have the popular vote.

Political parties can make whatever rules they want. In fact up until 50 years ago there was no primary, the parties just put forth who they wanted to run in the general. The idea is that if you don't like the rules of a party you are free to join or start another one or run as an independent. I personally find the superdelegate system to be silly, but it's the party's absolute right to make their system of candidate selection be whatever they want it to be. If that runs contrary to what the voters want, well, the party will ultimately pay the price. The reality is that primary voter turnout is so poor that it's not even close to representative anyway.

of course they can. that's how it's done in canada. the party has a vote internally of who they want their candidate to be. I wasn't saying they shouldn't be this way, I was wondering why they'd want to back someone who isn't the most popular to the voters.

I was more lamenting than really challenging anything to be honest. I personally think they should go back to the old system where there is no primary vote. In this day and age of information, the parties already have a handle on various projections of the general. They should just put up who they want and stop the charade and spare us all a year of the who can make up the most bullshit about the other candidate contest (because 99% of it is utter bullshit). Oddly, if you dispense with the whole party primary crap, I believe it would actually create more choice for all of us because money and support for other candidates would lead to more parties as other candidates realized that was their only option.

Free

The Secret History of Super delegates

Just 712 Democratic officials will decide whether Clinton or Sanders wins the nomination. Documents show that's what the party planned all along.

http://billmoyers.com/story/secret-history-superdelegates/

EdsonNascimento

To me the worst part is the way the media reports these as if they are done deals. They can change their minds up to the last minute. Now, I'm not naïve, I get what's going to happen. My point is - the media reports it with the required delegates making the lead look bigger than it is. The only thing I can figure is they are trying to influence future primary voters to either go with the flow or simply not vote b/c it won't matter.

The media should be reporting the actual number vs. the anticipated number.

But, then again, the media is so in the pocket of certain politicians that even if they were smart enough to do this they wouldn't.