2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Super delegates have worked for the Dems in the past. Why all of a sudden the move to get rid [View all]Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)into the platform, then perhaps it should be structured that way more implicitly. I'm all for that. We need that and it should be continued and even expanded because we have no Democratic party without strong, robust, and meaningful diversity.
I would actually prefer to eliminate the Supers as electors mostly because I would like to see the whining and bitching and crying about them every 4 to 8 years stop.
As for the "Trump" argument - even so-called bound delegates have the option of changing their vote and becoming "faithless" delegates. First of all I have faith in Democrats and Democratic voters. I foresee no instance where we would be in danger of electing a nominee who would truly be a threat to our country, such as Trump. To my mind, there is no other ethical argument for overturning the will of the voters. The nominee would have to present a grave and obvious threat to the country. It can't simply be about "winning." If we did elect such a person, I have faith our electors at the convention would have at least as much, if not more wisdom than the party officials that make up the Super Delegate system now.