Some of us support Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Yes BOTH! Why?

[Sophia4]

89. I think you understood my message very well.

Hillary won the popular vote, especially in California. But thanks to the electoral college and the fact that the votes of Californians like me count for only a small part of the votes of people who live in mostly conservative states like Wyoming and Montana, etc. (less than one million in population and others with less than 20 million in population), Hillary did not win the presidency.

There are various ways that the elections in the US are twisted toward conservatives. I am writing about two of them.

One is depriving certain qualified citizens of the right to vote, and the ACLU is attacking that kind of deprivation. Good for the ACLU and all who take election officials and states to court who deprive citizens of the right to vote.

Another is the electoral college. Most of the very small states, say less than 20 million in population (because California has a population of 39 million approximately), have a disproportionate number of electors in the electoral college compared to California because each state, regardless of population get one elector based on its number of representatives which is one representative for each state no matter how small and two electors for each senator. California has 55 electors. The number sounds large, but because we have only two senators, the number of votes each of those 55 electors represents is very, very large.

I have done the math on this many times on the internet and I am not doing it again today.

Each of these institutions dilutes the votes of individual liberal/progressive/Democratic voters in presidential and other elections.

And, similarly, within the Democratic Party, the existence of super delegates who get one delegate vote at the Democratic Convention which represents their own vote or opinion but not the vote of any other voter dilutes the votes of thousands of actual voters at the polls. So far, the super delegates have not actually changed the outcome at the Democratic National Convention as far as I know, but they could. And that is a threat and a potential injustice that could be easily prevented and should be prevented by doing away all together with the unnecessary rule that allows for super delegates at our conventions. The Democratic voters should decide who the Democratic candidate is. I don't think that super delegates have ever picked a candidate who was not also picked by the voters, but it could happen, and it should not be possible.

Please explain to me why you are so keen on keeping super delegates. What do they bring to Democrats that we would not have without them? Why are you so attached to the super delegate rules?