Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Tulsi Gabbard launches petition to end Democratic Party superdelegate process [View all]LiberalFighter
(51,138 posts)And she is being disingenuous about it. The only reason for her complaint about them and wanting to get rid of them is because of her misconception that they caused Sanders to lose. Under any method that others have tried to use Sanders still would had lost. What she is trying to do will guarantee that we will lose elections that should not be lost.
If she doesn't understand the history and process of the unpledged delegates it is also likely she doesn't understand how delegates are allocated to each state either. Just like the media doesn't understand the process for each.
There are several arguments for and against the current process. The pros have a better argument. The best arguments for the process: 1) It prevents party leaders and elected officials from being shut out of the process, 2) It creates unity when party leaders and elected officials have a part in it, 3) It provides more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and, in cases where the voters mandate is less than clear, to make a reasoned choice.
She states that unelected party officials and lobbyists should not have a say. By making that statement it demonstrates that she doesn't have a clue about party officials. Those unelected party officials are elected. I suppose she thinks they should also be elected by the voters in a primary. And allow voters who are not Democrats to determine a state party's officers. But the problem with her argument is that those party officials are elected. They are the chairs and vice chairs of each state party. They are elected by members of the state central committee that consists of other elected party members from the local areas. Each level from the precinct committee members all the way to the state party are elected by the party activists. They are the bread and butter of the party.
As for those lobbyists. Again she doesn't have a clue and it appears that if she knows a few lobbyists within the party then they all must be lobbyists. And identifying someone as a lobbyist because they belong to a certain group does not make one a lobbyist either. What Gabbard also forgets is that those so called lobbyists are elected at state conventions by state delegates. In reality those lobbyists are activists who have been involved in the Democratic Party. Activists from labor groups, women's, lgbt, local or state elected officials, small business owners, and many other sectors of the community.
It is interesting that she doesn't say a thing about members of Congress, Governor, or President. So it appears she wants to get rid of the others but not that group. A group she is a part of as a U.S. Representative.
None of the arguments against pledged delegates that are offered hold any water.