If Sanders were to ask for a rules change for proportionate distribution of SGs at the convention...

[bettyellen]

Has anyone done the math on that? Would that also be for the caucuses that also held a vote later - using the vote tallies I guess?
Saw this mentioned in an op Ed quoted on FB, so am unfamiliar with how this would work exactly.
TIA for your honest and non snarky answers!

[msongs]

1. he would still lose. he should ask for a rule change to outlaw all the votes hillary won.

[bettyellen]

4. That would be pushing it- although it does seem like whatever scheme works....

Is the new strategy.

[larkrake]

29. spliting the SGs wouldnt help him unless he has more regular delegates

[tonyt53]

2. Rules are already set and have been for quite some time.

[bettyellen]

3. I doubt he can get them changed, but this piece in the WSJ seems to think that he will

Seek to change the rules. Maybe that was his plan when he tried to replace a couple people on the committees?

It's in the second paragraph here, I think.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-might-not-be-the-nominee-1464733898

[brooklynite]

8. Trying to change the rules aat the last minute worked so successfully for Ted Kennedy in 1980...

[bettyellen]

17. Oh wow, yes! Totally forgot about that.

[MohRokTah]

20. And remember how all that shit worked out in the GE...

[bettyellen]

24. Excellent point. Which is why I have pivoted to the GE in real life....

Much to the chagrin of a few friends. Sorry dudes, the USSC matters to all of us too much to fuck around.

[larkrake]

31. That is what committees are there to do- to adjust and change rules up to the last minute

[oberliner]

21. The Wall Street Journal has never been more popular!

I cannot believe how frequently it is cited at DU recently.

[bettyellen]

23. It was just a theory I had not heard before - the rules change....

I figured if there was anything to it, people would know. Sounds like another fairy tale though.

[oberliner]

28. Fair enough

I was just observing that it is weird how many RW sources have made their way to DU recently.

[larkrake]

26. Rules are never set, they are adopted at each convention to avoid trouble and address any

circumstance

It is not going to happen, but rules can state if the candidate is convicted of a crime, her standing is not good and she will be dismissed and escorted out.

Rules are adopted to protect the party, not a candidate

[LiberalFighter]

5. They could not do it for this election period.

Any changes to the rules requires 2/3 vote.

Start with Hillary ahead with pledged delegates 1769 to 1501. Those are all proportional. Applying the same to automatic delegates would not change the outcome. The percent of pledged delegates is 54.0% to 45.9%. The ratio would remain almost identical when applied to automatic delegates. Using just the 562 automatic delegates from primaries/caucuses already completed the allocation would be 304 to 258 for total of Clinton: 2,073 -- Sanders: 1,759. The spread increases from 268 to 314 for Clinton.

[bettyellen]

18. 2/3 vote? Okay then- not happening, Bernie.

[Blue Meany]

32. They changed the rules in 2008, for apportionment and standing

of delegates from Michigan and Florida. Remember that Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot in Michigan and she wanted pledged delegates according to her votes, and she wanted the others to be unpledged. Obama argued that he should get most or all of the delegates from Michigan that Hillary didn't get. In the end, the rules committee counted the Florida and Michigan delegates as half a vote, and Obama did get some from Michigan. I don't remember a floor vote on this, but doubt that it would have passed if it required 2/3 votes.

[LiberalFighter]

34. Because Obama made the request.

[larkrake]

33. 2/3rds vote of the rules committee, not the delegates

only Party officials and committee can vote on rules changes

[HerbChestnut]

6. This has been tried at the state level

And the Dem Party won't let it happen. Something to do with the rules not allowing major changes like this to occur on the fly. This is why several states have voted to have SD's support candidates proportionally starting in 2020.

[bettyellen]

15. Interesting! Thanks Herb.

[brooklynite]

7. Lets do this one step at a time...

Clinton is ahead in actual votes.

Actual votes are used (except in some Caucus States) to determine proportionate share of pledged delegates.

If you distribute Superdelegates proportionally, Clinton will still be ahead, because she's ahead in both votes and pledged delegates.

[bettyellen]

13. So this is more foolishness designed to get people angry when it doesn't work? Fun.

Thanks for reassuring me, I wrongly I thought there might be some sense behind it!

[Exilednight]

37. Not every state has the same amount of super delegates, and the amount of super delegates a

State has is not in line with their population or registered Democrats.

NH, IA, LA and NV each have 8 super delegates, but the range of pledged delegates varies from 24 to 51 depending on size.

CA has the most with 71, but that makes sense since they have the most Democratic seats in the House.

[Dem2]

9. If the SDs were allocated proportionally, might as well get rid of them

They'd essentially become PDs and lose their reason for existing.

[bettyellen]

16. True that!

[LiberalFighter]

19. And that won't happen because they would be reverting to what they want now.

And we would end back at the same place as we are now.

[bettyellen]

25. Well then, none of that article is plausible then!

[larkrake]

41. Well, SGs are undemocratic. They include lobbyists, it is just too dark

[Dem2]

42. They should at least remove the lobbyists

Seems like a dumb idea to have these sorts of weasels as Superdelegates.

[larkrake]

43. I totally agree

[onenote]

10. My rough calculation shows that Clinton would have around 352 SuperD's to Sanders' 209

with 154 to be doled out proportionately. There are rounding issues so this may be off by a bit.

But the bottom line is that Sanders would have to capture over 90 percent of the remaining superd's to catch up to Clinton.

[bettyellen]

14. 90% - Well that is a sobering statistic!

[MyNameGoesHere]

11. Yes and if

grasshoppers had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them.

[bettyellen]

12. Omg lol- HA HA HA!

[Cali_Democrat]

22. Hillary still wins. Bernie loses either way. nt

[CrowCityDem]

27. The ONLY way Bernie can win is having it handed to him unfairly.

[Zynx]

30. That would still render him the loser.

It wouldn't matter one bit.

[larkrake]

35. The DNC has made it clear they will not play fair with Bernie. He wont win, even if he has the most

delegates, unless the unfavorables continue for Hillary into a GE loss likelyhood

[Tarc]

36. This is what they call a whopper with extra cheese

The superdelegates who pledged to Hillary early in the 2008 primary season jumped ship when it became clear that Obama would be the pledged delegate winner. That is what the supers do. That is what they have always done.

If Bernie had won the pledged delegate this year, the supers would have jumped to him again, and I wold have encouraged them to do so.

[larkrake]

40. I'm pretty sure Hillary made sure they were locked in before she even announced. She could not

fail again- she had her ducks in a row this time, I even considered her until she reverted back to sniping

[Zynx]

38. He has lost fair and square so far.

[seabeyond]

39. " He wont win"... Because he does not have the votes.