Superdelegates: What's the argument for/against?

[Garrett78]

It seems the other thread about superdelegates has, perhaps, gotten out of hand. So, I ask that folks refrain from talking about the 2016 Democratic Primary in this thread. Instead, let's just focus on addressing the following questions:

What is the argument for/against superdelegates? If you support there being superdelegates, who should they be? How many should there be?

[Proud liberal 80]

1. I think it prevents

Someone like Donald Trump from winning the nomination with just the plurality of the vote

[Garrett78]

4. Potentially, yes, but superdelegates are yet to be a determining factor.

[Wounded Bear]

2. What ProudLiberal said above...

It stabilizes the vote, IMHO. I know the younger generation wants all that old school crap was gotten rid of, but there is some value in some traditions. If the Party means anything, then the senior party members ought to have some ability to prevent the Trump-style crazy from taking over.

For me, the main thing I would change is to tell Super Delegates not to announce their choices early, at least until their own state primary is done.

[Garrett78]

6. With so many superdelegates being elected officials...

I think it's highly unlikely colleagues of candidates are going to hold off on endorsing specific candidates. And that's really what we're talking about, early endorsements. They aren't commitments, however. They typically end up supporting the will of the people, such as when Clinton superdelegates switched to supporting Obama once it became clear he was the preferred choice.

My biggest gripe is with lobbyists being chosen as superdelegates. I don't see how that's appropriate.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. However Bear, Doesn't That Sound Like. . .

. . .the reasons why we have the EC? The EC was supposed to stop a populist demagogue but it didn't. It has, now, in the span of 16 years, cemented the presidency in the hands of men ill prepared and intellectually incapable of doing the job.

I'm not seeing how the superdelegate concept is that different.

[Wounded Bear]

13. There were several causes that got Trump into the White House...

including things like voter apathy. The EC may have enabled the Trump and the Repubs to game the system, but I don't consider it a major cause of it. It ranks behind voter apathy, electioneering, and Russian meddling IMNSHO.

For all the rhetoric, there are valid reasons for the EC. Even as a proud citizen of a blue coastal state, I can understand how the less populous heartland states would hate a purely democratic process. It won't be easily changed and any real attempt to circumvent it would probably not pass muster, even in a fair Supreme Court.

I don't disagree about lobbyists participation. That is a part of it that should be cleaned up, but the entire government needs that, not just the Democratic Party.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. I Guess I Just Have An Issue. . .

. . .with the notion that there are some convention voters who are "more equal".

I'm ambivalent on the EC. I think it's ok, but i do believe there should be within state proportionality. The winner take all is totally undemocratic.

It avoids the small state concern you stated, but it prevents a few districts in 2 big states from turning the EC away from the popular vote so dramatically. Small state, big state, nobody should become POTUS when another candidate wins by 3 million votes.

The lobbyists as part of the superdelegate body, is a point on which we completely agree.

[greeny2323]

3. More about letting others participate

Super delegates are by and large higher ranking party officials who would otherwise run for real delegate spots, pushing out lesser known people.

[Garrett78]

5. Should lobbyists or CEOs be superdelegates?

Superdelegates make up about 15% of total delegates. Too high? Too low? Just right?

[Xolodno]

7. On one hand...

...the wise "elders" are there to block a "Trump"...even if it means losing an election cycle. "Tom, I don't think someone who looks to Lenin as a hero, despite the current popularity, is a good thing for the party, long term"

On the second hand, "hey Bob, this guys parent's gave a lot of dough to my campaign when I was still in the thick of it, lets give him the nod"....

....and on the third hand, "this guy is too radical and progressive for the party, the average Dick and Jane are not ready for it".... and the party loses due to disenfranchisement.

I think there is a need for them....with that said, could he process of being selected, rotated, etc. be better? It's definitely something worth looking into.

[Garrett78]

9. Choosing an oil industry lobbyist is bad optics.

[brush]

8. If repugs had super delegates trump would never have been their candidate.

Argument for.

[LostOne4Ever]

10. It takes away the voice of the people of the DEMOCRATIC party!!!

We are the DEMOCRATIC party, and we should act like it. Our candidates should be chosen by the people of the Democratic Party not some group who thinks they know better than everyone else!

We should do away with superdelegates (and maybe regular delegates if that is feasible) as well as caucuses and base it on the will of the entire party equally!

Do we believe in equality and democracy or don't we? Do we believe in the people or not?

Some of the posters above mention Trump, but they forgpt the most important thing-Trump only won because electoral system ignores the will of the people! Had it not been for the anti-democratic electoral college Hillary would be president now. When we put the power in the hands of the people we win!

[Wounded Bear]

14. When you come up with a way to get voter participation up to the 80% range...

get back to me.

[LostOne4Ever]

17. Starting by creating a voter holiday would be a good start! Nt

[Wounded Bear]

18. I'm not against the idea, but is irrelevant for me...

I live in a vote by mail state.

[hack89]

11. Allows the Party more control when one candidate does not have a majority of votes

they are irrelevant when there are only two candidates like the last election but play a role when a third candidate dilutes the vote.

[alarimer]

15. Gives fuel to the fire that the Democrats are bought and paid for like the Republicans

No lobbyists, no corporate shills and NO superdelegates.

The problem is have with the Democratic Party is not the voters, or even many of the candidates themselves. It is the gatekeepers. The money people who decide who can run. These people are unelected by anyone and are only consulted because of the money.

The other things is there is a quid pro quo going on. Influential money people DO get things the rest of us don't. It means Democratic officials can't really be for the people; they also have to listen to the lobbyists, whose interests are often diametrically opposed to our interests.