Super delegates, collectively, carry as much weight as the two largest states: NY and CA

[morningfog]

This year there are 714 super delegates,who can vote for any or no reason. As a super delegate, it's their second vote. First, they vote as a common citizen in their respective state primary. Then, as a super weighted, undemocratic check on the people.

714 super delegates. If they were a state, Superdelia is larger than any other state,by far. CA, the most delegate rich real state, carries 475 pledged delegates. NY, the next largest, has 247. Combined they have roughly the same voting power as the 714 individuals, at 722.

In other words, 714 individual people's votes count as much as the entire population of democratic voters in the two largest states.

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that such unfettered undemocratic prower will be challenged. It should not come as a surprise that people will use, and in some unfortunate cases, abuse the access of these public persons to sway them.

Of course, threats of violence are always wrong and come from unbalanced people. But, aggressive lobbying, even incessant lobbying is simply a product of the ill conceived concept of putting so much nominating power in the hands of a few.

[Nye Bevan]

1. The "people's choice" is the candidate who would win the nomination if there were no superdelegates.

I agree, the optics of the superdelegates overturning the choice of the people would be awful.

[morningfog]

6. It should be based solely on the vote of the people. There should be no super delegates.

[ViseGrip]

10. Then why are Hillary delegates supporting Hillary in states Bernie clearly won?

BULLIES

[Nye Bevan]

12. Perhaps because Hillary has won millions of votes more than Bernie?

Superdelegates don't have to tie their vote to a particular state. Maybe they subscribe to the old-fashioned notion that the candidate that gets the most votes should be the winner.

[Adrahil]

2. I support eliminating SD's IF....

we move to closed primaries. I do not think the party should have a nominee that cannot win the support of a majority of Democrats.

[JaneyVee]

5. Same here. Drop superdels, closed primary all 50 states, popular vote wins nomination.

This creates a true 50 state strategy, which is also great for the party.

[morningfog]

9. I prefer semi-open. No one registered with another party, but Dems and unaffiliated voters

should be welcomed.

[Adrahil]

16. "unaffiliated" voters are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

They want to be "independents," but they still want to be able to pick when they want to participate in the party system. What's the point of registering for a party if one can just be an independent and vote in the party primary? Further, why ever be registered to a party if an independent can choose to vote in the primary of ANY party that strikes your fancy? The whole point of parties is for people to pool their resources and efforts to advance candidates who represent the views of that group. If you want to be able to participate in that process, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to require such folks to actually be PART of that group. If you want to be "independent" then there is a consequence.... you don;t get to influence the party nominee directly.

[JoePhilly]

3. Which is why they are now Bernie's only chance at winning.

Not that they will switch mind you.

[morningfog]

7. Of course they won't switch.

His only chance at winning is a landslide on June 7.

[Adrahil]

17. At this point, it has to b e MORE than a landslide. NT

[JaneyVee]

4. Blame Tad Devine, he created the superdel system

[morningfog]

8. Fine. I don't care who created it. It should end.

[MineralMan]

11. That is an accurate statement. However,

that is the system in place for the Democratic Party. It will remain in place at the 2016 National Nominating Convention, too.

Should it be changed? Perhaps, but it's not going to be changed for 2016. Not a chance.

Here's the reality, though: The superdelegates will vote to nominate the candidate with a majority of pledged delegates, who are all allocated according to primary election results or caucus results in each state.

The superdelegates will vote to nominate the candidate with the majority of popular votes and caucus delegate votes, as well. Those also reflect the will of the voters in each state.

They won't do anything that changes the winner of those majorities. They didn't in 2008, and they won't in 2016.

We have only two primary candidates. One will have the majority of both pledged delegates and popular votes. That candidate will be the 2016 nominee for President of the United States. Bank on it.

And that's as it should be. The superdelegates will not vote for the losing candidate in pledged delegates and popular vote. They will not and should not.

You want a change? Become a party leader and push for it. Change could happen by 2020, if enough people in the party organizaton want that change. Get involved and make a difference.

[morningfog]

14. Their very function is to usurp the vote. Of course they won't do that.

THey are both undemocratic and completely irrelevant. They should be nixed and they could be this year, if everyone did the decent thing and voted to change the rule.

The 2008 example is meaningless. There was only one candidate standing by the convention. It remains to be seen whether 2016 will follow. Regardless, the supers should not usurp the pledged delegate winner.

[CobaltBlue]

13. morningfog—California and Texas are Nos. 01 and 02. Florida is No. 03. New York is No. 04.

[morningfog]

15. My measure, for this thread, is delegate weight.

I should have been clearer in the heading.