General Discussion

aaaaaa5a

(4,686 posts)

27. Caucases are more undemocratic than SuperDelegates

Wed Oct 12, 2016, 03:35 PM

Oct 2016

I also believe no state should be winner take all. Not in a primary system. The GOP process is terrible, because some states are proportional and other states are winner take all. Very undemocratic.

I think SuperDelegates are fine.
I think closed primaries are okay too.
The Democratic Party (or GOP) have the right to pick their nominee.

I am against caucases.
I am against winner take all states.
I am against open primaries.
I am against Iowa going first.

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 #