DNC Votes To Largely Strip 'Superdelegates' Of Presidential Nominating Power

[Devil Child]

Last edited Sat Aug 25, 2018, 01:52 PM - Edit history (2)

Source: NPR

The Democratic National Committee dramatically reduced the power and influence of "superdelegates" in selecting the party's presidential nominee at their summer meeting in Chicago on Saturday, ahead of what's expected to be a wide-open Democratic field in 2020.

DNC members voted on a proposal to take away the role of elected officials and other party dignitaries in selecting a nominee at the Democratic convention — leaving it up to delegates selected in primaries and caucuses only — unless the process becomes deadlocked.

Opponents of the move stood down and the measures were adopted in a voice vote. A DNC panel overwhelmingly approved the move earlier this summer.

The reforms adopted also encourage states that hold presidential caucuses, run by state parties, to switch to primaries, administered by state and local election officials. They require caucuses, in-person meetings, to have some provision for absentee participation, citing barriers to participation ranging from military service to child care to disability.


Read more: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/25/641725402/dnc-set-to-reduce-role-of-superdelegates-in-presidential-nominating-process

---

A step in the right direction if this measure passes today.

edited to reflect new total and vote results. It has passed! Great news.

[mcar]

1. Boo! Bad move

I stand with the CBC on this issue.

[leftofcool]

85. Just another reason we stopped giving to the DNC. They wonder why they are broke.

[hughee99]

115. Don't worry, if things don't turn out the way they want, they can change the rules on the fly

if needed. If the voters pick the same candidate the SD's like, we won't have an issue.

[JI7]

2. maybe they should add some minority states for same day as iowa and new hampshire

[George II]

3. I don't think it's going to pass. I know of several who will vote against it, none who will....

....vote for it.

We have to stop allowing people who are NOT Democrats to dictate to us how we should run our party.

[deurbano]

5. My daughter is there and she texted it passed...if I'm understanding her , that is.

I think it should be tied to getting rid of caucuses which are so undemocratic.

[proglib217]

101. My sentiments exactly

[Devil Child]

12. It passed, updated the article to reflect the passage n/t

[justie18]

75. Suggestion

And how about requiring candidates to actually be a member of the party if they want to run in the primaries!

Also, eliminate caucuses and open primaries.

[George II]

77. Yes, that would allow DEMOCRATS to choose our DEMOCRATIC candidate.

[CentralMass]

78. They already did.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/391459-dnc-panel-adopts-rule-requiring-candidates-to-run-serve-as-a-democrat

[stopbush]

95. The rule should state that anyone seeking the D nomination for president

must have been a registered D for at least the five full years leading up to the day they announce.

Under the new rule, Sanders can pull his bullshit - announce he’s running as a D, say he is now a D and then revert to an I when he loses.

The rule should apply only to president. You wanna run for dogcatcher, have at it.

[jmowreader]

113. Modify your rule a bit and you've got something good

They also need to have won at least one election as a Democrat, and the election needs to be to Congress, a governorship or a state congress.

[stopbush]

116. Indeed. We are talking about securing the honor to run for POTUS

as the nominee of the largest political party in the country.

The political bar should be very high on this one.

[jmowreader]

117. I can just hear the screams now

"But...you're keeping Bernie from running as a Democrat!"

Sure am...because he is NOT a Democrat. When he becomes a Democrat and wins election as one, he can use our resources to run for president. Until then, no.

[stopbush]

118. Bingo!

[irresistable]

4. it is the right move

If no one has a majority on the first ballot, then let the super-delegates decide it.

[murielm99]

6. I hope this does not happen.

It will weaken and divide our party and the precise time we don't need it!

[Devil Child]

13. The measure has passed, it was necessary reform

Next target should be caucuses.

[murielm99]

14. It was nothing of the sort.

It weakens us.

[Devil Child]

80. It weakens the role of superdelagates which is fine by me n/t

[murielm99]

89. When have the super delegates ever

changed the will of the voters and put in another nominee?

[Devil Child]

90. Never, and that will continue to be the case through efforts such as what was passed today.

In my opinion, a mechanism to change the will of the voters and put in another nominee SHOULD NOT exist. If the leadership has existential fears of such an outcome then they should regress to closed conventions and candidate selection for us dumb voters.

[shanny]

103. Then why have them at all? Since they are meaningless?

If (since) they are meaningless all they do is foster an un-democratic impression of the party. Smoke-filled rooms, etc. Better they go away altogether: the Democratic Party should select its candidate democratically.

And yeah, dump the caucuses as well. Also dump the artificial advantage of Iowa and New Hampshire. Rotate the primary dates and cut the whole schedule down to 3 or 4 (regional?) "super" Tuesdays. Everybody deserves a voice. Even California.

[CentralMass]

79. Why ? I support it.

[JaneQPublic]

7. Wish they would also decrease caucuses.

It's the most undemocratic form of voting.

One time, one night, one place, no absentee or early voting.

No simple ballot, but a whole dog and pony show with limited vote privacy.

[Devil Child]

10. I totally agree, caucuses need to go

I would prefer closed primaries as well.

[deurbano]

11. Yes on both those!

[KPN]

34. Ditto here.

[iluvtennis]

45. Ditto x 2

[irresistable]

52. open or closed is a matter of state law.

I agree with primaries over caucuses.

[MarcA]

55. Agreed. Long overdue n/t

[Me.]

8. So Let Me Get This Right

a non-Dem and other non-DEms may be directing how the DEms conduct their business.And that's called democracy!

[David__77]

16. Tom Perez supported this.

I think it is Democrats who voted to adopt it.

[Me.]

46. You Are Correct He Did

and I'm sorry he did and wonder if he is being defensive due to the last primary. I didn't see anything about ending causes which I consider far more undemocratic than 'super' delagates

[CentralMass]

81. The members voted on it. Maybe you can see if the Super D's can change the outcome.

[Me.]

82. Have They Ever

changed any outcome either in primary or otherwise?

[CentralMass]

86. An argument could be made that by declaring their intent early, such as in this last primary, they

greatly influence public opinion.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/antonio-moore/how-super-delegates-decid_b_10098414.html


Focusing in and looking at a state like New Hampshire, we can clearly see how superdelegates have effected this race. At the polls Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire’s pledged delegates by a landslide 22 percent. Bernie Sanders received 60.4 percent of the poll vote, just about 150,000 votes. Clinton received 38 percent of the poll vote, tallying just about 95,000 votes. Yet, all six Democratic New Hampshire superdelegates gave their support to Hillary Clinton, effectively erasing Sanders win, leading both candidates to leave the state with the same 15 delegates. The six votes of support by Governor Maggie Hassan, Representative Ann Kuster, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, and DNC members Bill Shaheen, Kathy Sullivan, and Joanne Dowdell, effectively erased the impact of 55,000 Democratic voters on this election.
2016-05-23-1463969363-7196927-NH.jpg

But to look at the aftermath of the vote count we truly have to critically evaluate the start. Hillary Clinton entered Super Tuesday in March in a virtual tie in pledged delegates with both candidates holding just about 50 pledged delegates, yet she held the support of nearly 400 super delegates. This early lead created the visual that Sanders could not defeat her for many voters, clearly affecting the race.

In effect this year, more than any before superdelegates may have not only decided the Democratic nominee, but they likely also chose the next President of the United State"

http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/02/12/superdelegates-democratic-primary
"Hillary Clinton may have suffered a big defeat in Tuesday night's New Hampshire primary election. Going by the number of delegates she gained though, she came out in much better shape. Both Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who won with a 22-point lead, walked away even, with 15 delegate votes each.

That's left some supporters scratching their heads asking how that is possible. The answer is "superdelegates."

https://www.cpr.org/news/newsbeat/sanders-won-colorado-so-why-didnt-he-win-more-delegates
Sanders Won In Colorado. So Why Didn't He Win More Delegates?
"Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders trounced Hillary Clinton in Colorado at Tuesday's caucuses, winning by 19 percentage points.
So why are projections, from NPR to Bloomberg, saying the state's 76 delegates will be split equally by the two candidates -- 38 a piece?

Part of it is easily explained: Colorado is not a winner-take-all state. So the projected delegate allocation is based on the percentage of votes won by each candidate. (The details get more complicated, as the Denver Post's John Frank explained earlier this week.)

Then there's the superdelegates. Ten of Clinton's delegates here are superdelegates -- elected Democrats and party officials who've already pledged support to the former secretary of state and are not bound by Tuesday's vote. They could switch allegiances before the national convention, but Colorado State University political science professor Kyle Saunders told CPR News' Mike Lamp he doesn't think that will happen.

"A massive surprise ... would provide the political cover for those super delegates to change their minds," Saunders said. "And we just haven’t seen anything like that yet."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/09/wyoming-democratic-caucus-results-sanders-wins-clinton-delegates
Bernie Sanders takes Wyoming caucus but Hillary Clinton picks up delegates

"Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders won the smallest state in the Democratic nomination race by a smaller-than-expected margin on Saturday, as he celebrated a seven-election winning streak that has more psychological than mathematical impact.


victory for a 74-year-old democratic socialist in one of the most conservative states the country.

In 2008, Barack Obama defeated Clinton in Wyoming by 61% to 38%, but fewer than a fifth of registered voters in the state are Democrats. Sanders has tended to fare better than Clinton in states using the caucus system rather than larger primary elections.

The small number of registered Democrats in Wyoming means that fewer than 6,000 caucus-goers taking part on Saturday helped to pick just 14 delegates for party’s national convention in Philadelphia in July. The result is unlikely to change the race much.

Early indications suggested that Sanders and Clinton would emerge with seven of these “pledged” delegates each. Clinton had earlier received endorsements from all four of the state’s so-called “superdelegates”.

[Me.]

99. Not Allowed To Have Opinions

or choice of candidate? Sigh

[CentralMass]

100. I'm not sure which side of the argument your reply is supporting ?

Super Delegates should not exist, period.
However if they must they certainly should not be able to influence primary election like they did in 2016 .

A good number of super D's in 2016 were or had worked as lobbyists. Letting monied interests into the electoral process should not be allowed.

Usurping the will of the electorate is not democratic.

[Me.]

104. I Disagree That They Influenced The Primary

lest we forget Devine came up with the concept and BS was hoping to influence them to his cause, not to mention he was one. And I'll need proof of "A good number of super D's in 2016 were or had worked as lobbyists" that is, aside from Devine. Names and numbers for such a claim.

Also... The will of the electorate was not usurped, the person who rec'd a monumentally greater number of votes won, which is the very definition of democracy.

[CentralMass]

105. I disagree with your opinion and state what happened starting in NH

in support of that disagreement.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/antonio-moore/how-super-delegates-decid_b_10098414.html

"At the polls Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire’s pledged delegates by a landslide 22 percent. Bernie Sanders received 60.4 percent of the poll vote, just about 150,000 votes. Clinton received 38 percent of the poll vote, tallying just about 95,000 votes. Yet, all six Democratic New Hampshire superdelegates gave their support to Hillary Clinton, effectively erasing Sanders win, leading both candidates to leave the state with the same 15 delegates. The six votes of support by Governor Maggie Hassan, Representative Ann Kuster, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, and DNC members Bill Shaheen, Kathy Sullivan, and Joanne Dowdell, effectively erased the impact of 55,000 Democratic voters on this election.
2016-05-23-1463969363-7196927-

[Me.]

107. This Is What Decided The Primary

Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016
Candidate Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders
Home state New York Vermont
Delegate count 2,842 1,865
Contests won 34 23
Popular vote 16,914,722 13,206,428

3,708,294 votes

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&ei=pfCBW4KnCOaZ_Qb7l5j4DA&q=how+many+primary+votes+did+bernie+sanders+get&oq=how+many+primary+votes+&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0l2j0i22i30l4.1290.8294..12166...1.0..0.162.1630.21j2......0....1..gws-wiz.....6..0i71j35i39j0i131j0i67j0i131i20i264j0i131i67j0i20i264.AqNDgsTLI2Q

[CentralMass]

109. Superdelegates disproportionately declaring for Hillary in numerous states that Sanders won

skewed rhe primary results and the media publicizing these skewed delegate counts altered public opinion and perception of the race. NH was the just the first incident. Sanders won the primary by 22% Yet all 6 Superdelegates pledged for Hillary. Usurping the will of 55, 000 Democratic voters. Sanders should have received 4 of those 6 delegates from these super d's. So the headlines become Hillary ties Sanders in his backyard. And so on and so on.
This was and is considered rigging the system by many if us and apparently the DNC agrees.

[Me.]

110. Sheer & Utter Nonsense

But believe it if it makes you feel better

[CentralMass]

111. I believe that the DNC just took a step to right the wrong.

[lovemydogs]

9. YAY!!!! Superdelegates role needs to be eliminated anyway

It's not democratic.

[David__77]

15. Wonderful news!

...

[left-of-center2012]

17. Good !

Superdelegates aren't that different than the old "smoke filled rooms" when party hacks picked candidates.

Let the voters choose.

And if the first ballot at a convention is deadlocked,
go on to a 2nd and 3rd one.

[Marrah_Goodman]

18. Fantastic!

[Jake Stern]

19. TBH I thought they'd cave to party poobahs

but they found some intestinal fortitude in the end.

Now let's work on getting rid of caucuses.

[Qutzupalotl]

20. This is a positive step.

Superdelegates played an outsized role in 2016 by announcing before the primary was decided, giving the impression it was a foregone conclusion.

For those who are worried about another Bernie or non-Democrat winning, the solution is to prevent non-democrats from entering the race. I say this as a Bernie supporter; the chair has the right to allow or deny a non-Democrat’s candidacy.

[msongs]

21. up next, all candidates in primaries and elections must be actual democrats nt

[True Blue American]

23. Absolutely!

Question. Who allowed that to happen in the last election?

This is for those who know.

[True Blue American]

22. No Independent

Should be allowed to use the Democratic party to run. And no chair should agree.

Never mind,it was DWS brilliant idea!

[David__77]

24. That's in place- one has to say they'll run and serve as a Democrat.

I believe that the candidates will say that. If, for instance, Bernie Sanders were to run, he’d say he’s a Democrat and will run and would serve as one.

[True Blue American]

26. I just looked it up on Google

DWS idea.

[George II]

29. He has never registered as a Democrat and never joined the Democratic Party.

[David__77]

35. Vermont has no party registration.

https://www.sec.state.vt.us/elections/frequently-asked-questions/voter-registration.aspx

Leahy hasn’t done this in Vermont either.

[George II]

43. He can set up his campaign committee and register with the FEC as a Democrat.....

....Leahy has always done this:

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00068353/?cycle=2018&tab=about-committee

Authorizing candidate: LEAHY, PATRICK J, Senate candidate, Vermont, Democratic Party

[David__77]

51. I think it might make more sense for the DNC to establish criteria.

Right now it’s simlly a self-report: candidate’s must say they are a Democrat and will run and serve as one. No further documentation needed.

I do think the idea of setting up a party-run regiatration method would be an alternative as well. The best way to close nomination proceedings to non- Democrats in every state would be to do that -&: have the party run the primaries and not the state governments.

[True Blue American]

87. Vermont just elected Bernie

Last edited Sat Aug 25, 2018, 05:51 PM - Edit history (1)

As a Democrat in the Primary. He said he would not accept it.

He is not a Democrat and Vermont is a tiny state. So is New Hampshire.

[David__77]

92. I understand.

There are some small states in this union.

[LuvLoogie]

58. Bernie is not a Democrat. Just ask him.

No Bernie in a Democratic Primary. If he wants to run third party and get trump elected again, that's up to him.

[David__77]

62. He is not a Democrat.

That’s a true fact.

I think he would be a Democrat if he ran for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. I see no scenario of the DNC disallowing from him running for that. I understand that others may disagree.

[LuvLoogie]

67. He ran as a Democrat for the money and access to the DNC infrastructure and debate stage.

He wants open primaries and more caucuses. No. Not again.

He is not a Democrat.

[David__77]

68. The DNC will not stop him should he choose to do so.

...

[George II]

25. They should pass two more rules, too:

1. Candidates for the Democratic nomination for ANY office must be registered Democrats
2. Superdelegates can ONLY vote for registered Democrats

[David__77]

28. Not every state has Democratic voter registration.

Would the Democratic Party itself set up a register of party members? I’ve thought of that itself. That would be like the British Labor Party.

[True Blue American]

32. Amen to that!

Never again,and if Perez says yes he needs to go,too.

Terry McAuliffe would have never stood for what took place. And Terry is available again.

He built a new headquarters and made the DNC solvent.

And now,he is on the road again! Former Governor of Virginia.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/17/terry-mcauliffe-dnc-fundraiser-2017-246731

[Trust Buster]

27. This is just a strategy to hand our party over to Independents. Disgusting.

[David__77]

30. Tom Perez wants to do that?

...

[Trust Buster]

33. Bernie Sanders wants to do that.

[David__77]

36. Tom Perez supports doing that?

...

[Trust Buster]

39. Yes. This is a coup IMO.

[David__77]

42. I understand.

It was definitely an important vote that I think changes the dynamics of the 2020 race. I do think that reforming caucuses to foster participation would be good. Perhaps caucuses could be turned into party-run primaries where states don’t allow for state-run primaries.

[Trust Buster]

47. I think this move seals the fate of the democratic nominee in 2020. Many democrats simply won't

Stand for this kind of chicanery IMO.

[Bradshaw3]

94. Seals the fate of the Democratic nominee?

Meaning they won't vote for the Democratic nominee in 2020 becasue they changed the rules on superdelegates? And re-elect trump? Seriously?

[Devil Child]

41. Apparently the berniebro conspiracy has subverted Tom Perez into carrying out their evil plans....

[David__77]

44. Well, it's clear that Tom Perez supported this.

...

[True Blue American]

40. If Perez does he will deal with Biden, Obama

And Terry McAuliffe. All are right there and Biden recomended Perez.

[KPN]

48. One can look at it that way or that it's

a positive step toward making sure our nominee is determined democratically while at the same time growing the party. More voters equals more ability to enact the Democratic Party platform.

[Autumn]

31. Good news. One person one vote. Next step, get rid of caucuses.

Thank you Tom Perez.

[Trust Buster]

37. No, the caucuses will stay because they are preferential to 3rd party candidates.

[Autumn]

49. The caucuses disenfranchise too many young Democrats whose

voices need to be heard. The future belongs to them and they should have the say. I have never missed a caucus and have seen very few people under 40 and even fewer in their 20's. They are undemocratic and too time consuming.

[True Blue American]

53. And include too few people.

[Autumn]

56. At our caucus you had to be there at 6:30. If you were in line at 7

you could participate. If you weren't you were SOL. It's too restrictive for young people with work and children.

[Trust Buster]

54. The caucuses do just the opposite. Any fool can promise young voters the moon in caucus states

And distort ther vote. We saw that very thing in the primaries.

[Autumn]

59. Nonsense. You have to be a Democrat to participate in our caucuses.

If others states have open caucuses that's just stupidity on their part.

[Autumn]

60. Not ours. You must be a registered Dem to caucus in our primary.

[ucrdem]

38. Unwarranted rebuke of the CBC, and the kind of thing that seems not to matter until it does.

For example, California's left-wing Peace and Freedom Party nominated Roseanne Barr for president in 2012 and she ran as a leftist in Calif, maybe other states too. Turns out she stank and now is a RW loon but who knew then? That's the kind of thing I think supers would prevent. But noooo.

[True Blue American]

50. I am not sure how the party could get much wealer after the reign of DWS!

She was a disaster.

[pnwmom]

57. Uh, huh. So in states with open primaries, like California, Indies and even R's could pick

our nominee.

Great idea.

Yeah, and ignoring the objections of the Congressional Black caucus.

Brilliant.

[ucrdem]

63. What could go wrong?

[Trust Buster]

64. Moderate dems were just effectively booted out of the party as a result of this. Totally crazy.

[David__77]

69. How's that?

...

[Trust Buster]

71. This move plus retaining the caucuses is skewing everything far left.

[jalan48]

61. Super!

[zentrum]

65. Good News.

[left-of-center2012]

66. Giving the party back to the people !

Let the voters decide.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

96. The get rid of caucuses

They're horribly undemocratic, but the Saint Bernard folks wouldn't dream of losing the one place they could win

[Devil Child]

97. Saint Bernard primary voter and supporter checking in!

As a devout Saint Bernardist I'm very supportive of closed primaries and elimination of caucuses.

I only say this of course as it appears the Sanderista "DNC coup" was successful today!

[Donkees]

70. Twitter Video: Here's what the DNC reforms look like:

Link to tweet

[klook]

83. Looks good to me! Thanks. (nt)

[AllyCat]

72. Good news.

If for no other read than allowing absentee participation

[BannonsLiver]

73. A reasonable compromise

Superdelegates which have never been needed to select a nominee are eliminated from the process, and sanders supporters are no longer allowed to complain endlessly about their existence. Works for me.

[bucolic_frolic]

74. Representative Democracy is a process of filtering and measuring, over time

Back in the 60s and 70s and even the 80s, you learned a lot about candidates after 6 months of political tests. Superdelegates are part of those who must be convinced, and they protect the party and the country from fringe candidates who either can't win, or are far from the political mainstream and mores.

We gain nothing by ditching superdelegates. Or by loading the primaries into 2 months with states vying for importance by being bigger and going first. In fact I'd almost say we're better off if the bigger states are loaded into the last 3 months, randomly, to settle the contest after the candidates have shown their hand for several months.

Maybe superdelegates could be partly chosen along the way, instead of pledged insiders from the start.

[CentralMass]

76. It is a good start. They should eliminate them.

[rollin74]

84. Good!

[Gothmog]

88. Every Democratic presidential candidate must be a Democrat

This rule was also adopted today https://www.politicususa.com/2018/08/25/democrats-slash-superdelegate-influence-and-force-all-presidential-candidates-to-be-members-of-the-party.html

There will be no more Independents running for the Democratic nomination. Consider this the Bernie Sanders rule. If a candidate wants to be the Democratic nominee, they must be a Democrat. This is a change that rank and file Democrats have been demanding since the 2016 primary because it is only reasonable for members of the Democratic Party to want their candidates to members of the party. The same day party switching rule doesn’t get rid of closed primaries but emphasizes allowing voters who want to switch over to vote for Democratic candidates.

Here is the wording of the rule

Link to tweet

[Devil Child]

91. This is smart, sensible, and should have been in place for 2016

Next is the caucuses.

[ucrdem]

93. It needs to say "for the last two years at least." As it stands

Sanders could have signed such a statement in 2015. Not that it's bad, just not very much.

[Devil Child]

98. Also sensible, that is a solid good faith commitment to demonstrate commitment to party unity

If you want to benefit from the machine, you should be a functioning part of it.

[shanny]

102. Good!

Now reverse the stupid f@cking idea of accepting donations from the fossil fuel industry.

[BlueMTexpat]

106. For those who are gloating over this, it is

a pyrrhic victory at best. The only truly positive thing about this decision is that it is one less thing about the Democratic Party that will be misrepresented by the M$M and too many pseudo-Dems who have NEVER understood the history behind SDs.

The role of Superdelegates has largely been misunderstood by far too many who have raged against and opined about them. The fact is that SDs - since their creation in the 1970s - have NEVER gone against the winner of the popular vote in the primaries - and they never would have. In 2016, the overwhelming winner of the popular Democratic primary vote was Hillary Clinton. That she also had the overwhelming majority of SDs was basically moot.

Even now, SDs will still have some power, however.

There were two things about these "reforms" that encouraged me: 1) that caucuses will allow for absentee voters and 2) that states are encouraged to have primaries instead of caucuses.

I know that my state (MD) will resist the idea of an open primary and I will stand with it on that.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

108. Is there, or why cant there be, a way to do instant run-off voting for party primaries? Here in WI

recently we had a primary with 10 candidates, about 5 which I would have been happy with. I know many people were like me, standing in line to vote and we STILL hadnt made up our minds!

I would have loved to have been able to rank them and feel like a more true reading of the voters' wishes would have emerged.

I think most of us are fine with the nominee (who got about 40% of total vote), but it just illustrates what could be a possible problem - what if so many candidates run and none emerge as a real front runner? How then does the nominee get selected? Isnt that kind of the reasoning behind superdelegates to function sorta as a tie-breaker?

Its kinda like what happened w repubs last time - the majority of voters wanted Not-Trump, but due to so many candidates splitting up the vote - they got Trump.

Of course we are not in any danger of getting anyone THAT preposterous, but still it could be hugely contentious and divisive if there is not a majority and not some clear mechanism in place for a fair selection.



Thats kinda what happened with

[TomCADem]

112. Now Let's Get Rid of Caucuses

Ignoring Democratic voters in favor of delegates in Washington was outrageous in 2016.

[Owl]

114. Good!