General Discussion

LiberalFighter

(53,544 posts)

15. I totally agree and have from the time I researched the history of how it came about.

Wed Oct 12, 2016, 03:21 PM

Oct 2016

I think it is fair and appropriate that the DNC has it in place. It did not change the outcome of the nomination but if we had a George Wallace or Donald Trump we would had been able to pull that lever and reject him.

But that alone was not the reason our system is fair and appropriate. It is also the elected delegates are allocated proportionately based on election results. Under the GOP method the margin would had been about a 2,000 delegate advantage instead of the just over 500.

With the smaller margin it required both candidates to seek out the best policies to support. It also helped that we had fewer candidates in the primary compared to the Republicans. Which means more of the voters supported the ideas of our candidates than the Republican candidates.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Maybe we should think twice before getting rid of our superdelegate system.. [View all] pnwmom Oct 2016 OP

FROM YOUR MOUTH TO GOD'S EAR. LisaM Oct 2016 #1

Nope Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #2

+1 OnionPatch Oct 2016 #5

I have faith in the Democratic primary voter. yallerdawg Oct 2016 #14

I'm fine with our system. NCTraveler Oct 2016 #3

That is exactly right. LiberalFighter Oct 2016 #16

Yeah....screw the voters! davidn3600 Oct 2016 #4

Ummm, anyone can register as a Republican or Democrat and vote in the primaries LisaM Oct 2016 #9

Thank You. Its a PRIMARY misterhighwasted Oct 2016 #29

They're not the rich and elites. marybourg Oct 2016 #10

Tell me what the average income and net worth of a superdelegate is.... davidn3600 Oct 2016 #11

Probably the average of city, state and marybourg Oct 2016 #13

Sure it might be a little higher than some of us. LiberalFighter Oct 2016 #19

I see, so because they make more trips to Washington D.C. they know better than us normal folk davidn3600 Oct 2016 #41

Yes! LiberalFighter Oct 2016 #51

How are the rich and elites selecting our candidates? LiberalFighter Oct 2016 #18

When 90% of Superdelegates endorsed someone immediately davidn3600 Oct 2016 #36

Bull! LiberalFighter Oct 2016 #57

If voters knew about this before viguy2016 Oct 2016 #64

People who are concerned about superdelegates... trotsky Oct 2016 #8

The problem is that this primary season they were used as a tool... TCJ70 Oct 2016 #12

Yep. That's the problem....they were used as a weapon to discourage other candidates davidn3600 Oct 2016 #21

They painted the picture that Hillary had a strong network pnwmom Oct 2016 #25

They were correct, of course. We will now win this election. misterhighwasted Oct 2016 #33

Would they not have supported a different winner? TCJ70 Oct 2016 #34

Not necessarily with the same enthusiasm. They're humans, not robots. n/t pnwmom Oct 2016 #35

That's garbage... TCJ70 Oct 2016 #39

If they are going to go with the voters anyway, why are they even needed? davidn3600 Oct 2016 #43

They will go with the voters for normal, sane candidates.. pnwmom Oct 2016 #44

So, hypothetically speaking, if Bernie Sanders won more votes, superdelegates would leave Hillary? davidn3600 Oct 2016 #45

First, this is parties picking candidates, not a general election LisaM Oct 2016 #52

I totally agree and have from the time I researched the history of how it came about. LiberalFighter Oct 2016 #15

I'm beginning to believe the GOP's winner take all is what screwed them RAFisher Oct 2016 #38

Technically it is not 15% LiberalFighter Oct 2016 #53

Not only should we keep the super delegate system, I believe the Republicans will adopt one. Happyhippychick Oct 2016 #17

so funny how we want to get rid of something republicans really, really wish they had. unblock Oct 2016 #20

The GOP would be self-destructing even with this system davidn3600 Oct 2016 #23

It wouldn't have been as bad as what's happening now. n/t pnwmom Oct 2016 #26

Yeah it would davidn3600 Oct 2016 #32

You think having the super delegates overriding the people's vote would unite the party? RAFisher Oct 2016 #24

SuperDelegates don't override the popular vote aaaaaa5a Oct 2016 #30

I think it would have been a better outcome for them if they could have gotten rid pnwmom Oct 2016 #31

Caucases are more undemocratic than SuperDelegates aaaaaa5a Oct 2016 #27

I am undecided r/t superdelegates ... agree 100% on ridding ourselves of caucuses etherealtruth Oct 2016 #47

I think it needs to go. CentralMass Oct 2016 #28

Nope, it is undemocratic. n/t demmiblue Oct 2016 #37

The bulk of superdelegates marybourg Oct 2016 #46

That is like saying the Senate is undemocratic because each state gets 2, pnwmom Oct 2016 #59

Lol. n/t demmiblue Oct 2016 #60

It does show the danger in letting the base pick the candidate with no checks inwiththenew Oct 2016 #40

I am fine with eliminating them GulfCoast66 Oct 2016 #48

The superdelegates have never gone against the voter's wishes. tinrobot Oct 2016 #49

Because they've already put their thumb on the scale davidn3600 Oct 2016 #54

Well, maybe change the system so they can't commit until after the primaries. tinrobot Oct 2016 #65

we aren't as vulnerable due to our diversity. geek tragedy Oct 2016 #50

I'm ok with the super delegate system Ellen Forradalom Oct 2016 #55

How about keep Superdelegates but prohibit them from disclosing their vote until after the primaries Statistical Oct 2016 #56

This is exactly the problem... TCJ70 Oct 2016 #58

No, thanks. LWolf Oct 2016 #61

I don't think one can fairly compare our base to theirs. Warren DeMontague Oct 2016 #62

well you got a discussion a-goin'! lol Divine Discontent Oct 2016 #63

Dec 1969 #