"The party decides its nominee. The public doesn't really decide the nominee."

[DanTex]

Umm, I guess it's nice that they just come out and say that. Because with all this campaigning and voting, people might have had the impression that there was a democratic process going on by which the Democratic electorate got to choose their nominee.

Link to tweet

[TwilightZone]

1. Welcome to representative democracy.

You know that's what we are, right? At the federal level, anyway.

In fact, it wasn't until 1913 that Senators were voted directly by the public. The framers wanted them chosen by the legislature and wanted them isolated from "pressure from the populace". That's about as non-direct as it gets.

Read and learn:

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm

[empedocles]

5. 'Mobs' were a common fear

[squirecam]

14. History.

Read it.

[DanTex]

19. Huh? Superdelegates are representative democracy?

[TwilightZone]

26. You don't know what a representative democracy is.

Why am I not surprised?

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to a direct democracy where the people decide on issues directly.

We are the former. We have never been the latter at the national party or presidential level. One person, one vote has never applied, and it was intentional. As I noted with the Senate example, the framers didn't trust the populace to make informed decisions. Hence, representation.

As applied to the party nomination process, those elected officials include members of Congress; Democratic governors; elected members of the DNC; elected officials of related groups like Young Democrats and the National Federation of Democratic women; national committee-persons elected to represent their states; and former presidents, VPs, Congressional leaders, and so on.

What do all of those people have in common? They are all elected officials chosen to represent groups of people in their elected roles and as representatives of their organizations and the Democratic party at the convention. In the latter role, they are, you guessed it, superdelegates.

Again, welcome to representative democracy.

[Malmsy]

37. I think that he knows what it is.

[ehrnst]

45. That doesn't appear to be the case.

[DanTex]

38. Of course I do. And it has utterly nothing to do with party insiders overriding the will

of the people in selecting a presidential nominee.

[ehrnst]

44. "overriding the will View profile of the people in selecting a presidential nominee."

You mean like a former superdelegate trying to pressure other superdelegates into overriding the will of the people by taking away the nomination from the candidate that had won the majority of pledged delegates by a wide margin, and bestowing the nomination on another candidate?

Like that?

[NoDakLinda]

42. Re: representative democracy (really) Twilight Zone

The process called the Electoral College is how the president and vice president are elected, and they are not elected directly by citizens, they’re chosen by electors. However, in other U.S. elections candidates are elected directly by popular vote.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which already has 11 states and the District of Columbia on board, would give the 2020 presidential election to whoever wins the popular vote. But it would only take effect if states representing at least 270 electoral college votes pass the law. Colorado is set to become the latest member of a group of states banding together to bypass the electoral college system. Many states right now have laws that award all its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes within the state.

In France the election is based on the concept that no one should lead the nation unless they have won the popular vote. In America elections for House, Senate seats, governor and mayor, are held under the same standard, but the presidential campaigns are not. They require most of the Electoral College, which isn’t the same as the popular vote.
This could make a dramatically different outcomes in U.S. presidential elections, where a winner can (and often does) become president without the popular vote, and where the length of the campaign puts huge emphasis on finances, backing, media bias.

[George II]

20. "They"? Just who are "they"?

[empedocles]

3. When the party picked Presidential timber, the quality of choices was higher.

'The public' picked reagan. Then it seemed all sorts of people, figured if Alz reagan could be President, they too ought to run for President.

[stopdiggin]

12. good point. probably not a popular one here, but ...

Peace.
-- --

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. Harding, Pierce, Buchanan, all in the era before primaries

not exactly "high-quality choices".

[CincyDem]

34. Absolutely right through the lens of history.

What we don’t know were the alternatives and fact on the ground when those decisions were made. While a scary thought, they might have been good choices vs the alternatives.

[msongs]

4. the candidate does not get to make himself nominee unless he has a majority of delegates and that's

how it has worked for many many decades beginning with 2016

[blueinredohio]

6. WOW!! Good to know. So all the money wasted on campaigns is just that? Wasted?

Do the delegates decide all or do they vote on who the most people voted for?

[thesquanderer]

7. The public doesn't even get to vote for the President of the United States.

We vote for electors, who in turn vote for the President of the United States. And the electors in one state may represent more or fewer people (total votes) than an elector in another state.

[rzemanfl]

30. True that. n/t

[AGeddy]

8. The primaries elect delegates to the convention

That's all they do.

The delegates to the convention select the nominee, based on rules that say there must be at least 50% of the delegates for a nominee to be chosen and that they keep revoting until someone gets there.

It forces coalition building. The nominee should be able to build coalitions to get themselves to 50% of the delegates.

Any nominee that can't build coalitions to get themselves to 50%, is by definition NOT a unifier.

[LanternWaste]

9. A representative democracy can be a real surprise to those who skipped 7th grade civics.

[squirecam]

17. Lol

Nt

[stopdiggin]

23. well put! quelle surprise! (nt)

[Squinch]

29. I know this is a joke and it IS funny, but how awful is it that

the 7th grade civics class fell so far by the boards? I can't help but believe that things would be simpler if people all knew the rules.

There's another thread going where a poster describes telling a group of voters that their proposed candidate won't be able to enact his proposals by executive order. The voters were stunned and horrified.

[sweetloukillbot]

10. We, the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, shouldn't pick our nominee?

You do understand that primaries and caucuses and the convention are the party picking the nominee, don't you? I'm a member of the party, I get to vote in a primary to pick the nominee.
That's the process. It's not that difficult to understand. I've got a ballot on my kitchen table that I'm going to send in telling what my choice for the candidate is. If I wasn't in the party, I wouldn't have one.
Now there are some states that allow people who aren't in the party to help choose the nominee. Places where Republicans register and vote for people in order to skew the selection from the actual party members. I don't think that's particularly fair.
Membership has its privileges.
The public - everyone who isn't in the party - gets to vote in the general election.
It's really simple and I'm not sure why people like Shaun King have trouble understanding the process.

[stopdiggin]

22. don't waste your breath. this wasn't intended to be

informed opinion.

You do understand that primaries and caucuses and the convention are the party picking the nominee, don't you?

Well yes. But it's so much more fun to fulminate and caterwaul over an obscure soundbite!

[George II]

11. Where do people get the idea that the party decides it's nominee? That's simply not true.

[Skya Rhen]

13. When voters in Iowa and NH tell pollsters that X has best chance to beat Trump then vote for Y & Z

then, indeed, it's time for the "party" to take matters in their own hands - for the good of the "public". This is not a game.

[AGeddy]

15. How did the Libertarian and Green Parties pick their nominee in 2016?

The rules of those parties stated that they pick their nominee based on processes that did NOT involve voters.


The rules of the Democratic party state that a nominee must get at least 50% of the delegates at the national convention. Delegates to the national convention are chosen by the voters in all the states and territories.

The rules also state that unless a candidate can get to 50%, then the delegates revote using superdelegates. If there still isn't 50% for one candidate, then they revote again, and again, and again until someone gets to 50%.


Bernie agreed to all of these rules when he decided to become a Democrat prior to this election season. If he didn't want to follow the rules of the Democratic Party for selecting its nominee, he was free to run in another party's process or as an independent.


By deciding to become a Democrat, he subjected himself to Democratic Party rules.

Now he must abide by them.

[ahlnord]

18. Bernie actually helped WRITE those rules.

[ahlnord]

16. Yes, the party gets to choose its nominee.

I think you are missing the point (unless I am misreading you). Of course, the Democratic Party gets to decide who they will run. Why should Republicans and Independents and anyone else who does not even identify as a Democrat choose the Democratic nominee?!! Nor should anyone but Republicans choose the Republican nominee. If a company is holding an annual stockholders meeting, they don't let people come in off the street who are not shareholders to vote on their officers and other issues. I don't see this point as controversial at all. What am I missing? If someone wants to have a voice in deciding the Democratic nominee they simply should join the Democratic Party and engage in that selection. And work for their candidate of choice and contribute to the campaign.

[JustAnotherGen]

21. But the Democratic Party

DOES pick the Nominee.

The public votes in the GE.

In my state - you have be a registered Democratic to vote in our Primary. I don't see what the controversy is around that?

I think part of the 'concern' over this - is we have a leading candidate from VT which I *think* doesn't allow party registration. Correct? He might not understand that the states run their elections (state's right) and our State Legislators make the rules.


Let New Jersey be New Jersey and let registered Democratic Party members ONLY vote in our Primary.

[ripcord]

25. "Sorry to the young people who are our future but your opinions just don't matter"

[PubliusEnigma]

27. It's not a free for all. The Party is supposed to be choosing from among it's own members.

[Autumn]

28. Here we have all this angst because the Democratic party allowed an outsider in. Guess they should

have stuck to their guns and not allowed Bernie to run in their party.

[awesomerwb1]

31. How does that old saying go again?

If any of that were true - victim card for candidate-you-know-who .

What does it say about a candidate that the candidate runs under a party the candidate claims the candidate is not a member of. But not only that, the candidate accuses said party of rigging the elections against him/her before. So what does super smart candidate do? Candidate does the exact same thing again.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[Gothmog]

32. 70% of the party does not support sanders

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

33. Please stop with the pearl clutching... He's talking about the

convention, where delegates vote, delegates sent by the voters (in the case of caucuses - delegates).

No there is no direct vote at the convention by "the public"

Are you now just understanding this?

[irisblue]

35. Shaun King is a truly annoying source, IMO

[Aaron Pereira]

39. When he says "the party" he's referring to the Democratic establishment.

I hope he's speaking for himself, I'd really hate to see the party disenfranchise our rank and file members by throwing out the entire primary process to declare it's own winner. That's a very un-democratic attitude.

[Tactical Peek]

40. "The public" includes Republicans, Greens etc. who should not select D nominees.

Primaries and caucuses that allow Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Reform partiers and all the rest to vote in the selection of Democratic candidates suck, suck in my humble opinion.

[Moderateguy]

41. The Democratic Party is a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION

It does not have to do anything it does not want to do. Will that cause voter discontent? YES. Are they OBLIGATED to care about it? NO

[Gravitycollapse]

43. They will lose the election. I guess they don't care about winning.

[Moderateguy]

46. Maybe, the point is they don't owe anyone anything

[Gravitycollapse]

47. They're a national party. They owe a lot of people something.

[frazzled]

48. Primary turnout is so low anyway

that it can hardly represent the full will of Democratic voters. In 2016, it was only 14.8% of eligible Democratic voters. Too early to tell yet, but thus far it’s pretty tepid. Delegates are being elected to vote at the party convention, which also includes delegates consisting oF Democratic senators and House members, state party chairs, governors, etc. They are the so-called superdelegates. Why should they not have a say when no candidate has a majority of pledged delegates? They (together with the pledged delegates voters selected) represent us, having been voted in by the people.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/10/turnout-was-high-in-the-2016-primary-season-but-just-short-of-2008-record/ft_16-06-08_primaryturnout/
?w=420

[tirebiter]

49. Why should non party members decide a party's leader?