The superdelegate pledge is not binding until they get to the floor yet everyone (except the NYT) includes them in the count. Has that actually affected the primary/caucus vote viz Clinton has gotten more vote because everyone want to vote for a winner and/or fewer votes for Sanders because why bother he’s going to lose?
I say this as a Sanders supporter: hell no. The chances that superdelegates are going to change their mind and support Sanders in numbers sufficient to change the Democratic nominee are zero, barring something unexpected and unprecedented (see: Clinton reveals herself as a Lizard Person). It’s perfectly valid to include them in the count.
No it’s not tainted. It’s an unfair process from the git go, but everyone was aware of how it worked (except maybe the American people, but they know now).
Exactly. And then they’ll forget in 4 years. The parties need to pick someone who can win, “fair” or not. The current system is supposed to do that, but if it needs to be changed, I’m not so sure it needs to be made “fair”. Again, the object is to win in Nov. If you need an unfair process to do that, then so be it.
I doubt it has. In a 3-candidate race, I can see people strategically voting for their second-choice candidate because that candidate was more likely to beat the third choice.
But in a two-candidate race, why would you vote for the candidate you dislike? I guess people might just stay home because they figure their vote doesn’t matter. But that’s always a risk if we don’t have compulsory voting.
I agree with this. I’d be happy if an entire convention of superdelegates picked the candidate. Maybe have the supers cast votes at state conventions, ultimately leading up to the national con. It reduces the possibility of a loser like Trump getting nominated, it would shorten the campaign season, and it would likely help attract better quality candidates who might otherwise be turned off by a insanely grueling process that lasts well over a year.
This also happened in 2008. Do you remember the outrage and anguish that resulted?
Neither do I. It’s a non-issue, except to self-obsessed Bernie Bros.
There is nothing democratic about a two stage voting system, where voting at the first stage is restricted in every single state. (Is there any state where you can vote in both the Democratic and Republican ballot? No. Is there any state where you can vote for one party over the other during the primary? No.)
The parties should choose whoever the hell they want to, just like it occurs in every other world democracy. The real election occurs in November.
While we’re at it, we should eliminate term limits. They serve no function. Bicameral legislatures encourage gridlock and diffusion of accountability. First past the post voting is a terrible way of choosing a leader: approval voting is superior. Also, super-proportional representation would encourage a broader process of deliberation. Avenge Cecil! Launch the James Webb Space Telescope! Support nominal GDP level targeting!
Has the use of caucuses, which limit and distort participation, tainted Sanders’ delegate count?
If not, why not? And why aren’t people indignant about superdelegates, which have never and are not doing anything more than confirming the voters’ choice, far more indignant about caucuses?
I’ll have what he’s having.
Yes. Yes it has.
Superdelegates didn’t confirm the voters’ choice, most them decided before a single vote was cast.
They could have decided back, if there had been any reason to. There wasn’t and isn’t. Sanders didn’t lose because of them, he lost because of Sanders.
What do you think of caucuses?
No, because you can also argue that the superdelegates supporting Clinton helped create initiative for Sanders and portray him as an anti-establishment underdog. So the SDs go both ways.
Either way, Hillary has a lead of about 300 pledged delegates and has since super tuesday. Sanders cut into that a bit and cut it down to a 200 delegate lead, but then Clinton got ahead of him again.
Caucuses are exclusive by time commitment. Everyone should just be able to go to their local polling place, vote, and get on with their day.
Miniature versions of the party process that you think works so well.
These numbers are a little dated, but how is it democratic and expressing the will of the people etc. to get only 42% of the vote but 46% of the delegates?
That’s what caucuses do for a candidate supported disproportionately by people who can take the time to show up.
Super delegate support is part of the process. It’s not like Clinton just magically had that support starting out, she knew she was going to run for President and sought out their backing. It was Sanders who ignored them until he realized he couldn’t win without their support.
If the claim is the voters followed the perceived winner because news agencies counted supers, Clinton outplayed Sanders politically by securing super delegates before the election. It just shows he’s an amateur, why shouldn’t Clinton benefit from her political savvy?
The super delegates are leaders in the Democratic party, by announcing their support for a particular candidate they are leading voters, almost like it’s their job. The fact the voters chose to follow doesn’t imply corruption it implies leadership is choosing a direction voters prefer.
If you don’t support Hillary Clinton from now on…you’re a Trump supporter.
Right.
And looking back to 2008, Clinton also had the superdelegate lead…until she didn’t. Superdelegates can and will change their minds, but only for candidates who win pledged delegate and overall vote majorities. That was a much closer race than this, but you didn’t get half the complaining about the process (to be fair, the “outsider” candidate ended up ahead, forestalling much of it).
You can make the claim that supers coming out early for one candidate over another gives them some kind of edge, but that doesn’t seem to have made much difference the last several cycles.
That said, I wouldn’t mind the system changing (or staying the same), but, realistically, any change would have made Sanders chances even slimmer had they been used this year. That’s the rub. The current system actually gave him more of a shot than he would have otherwise.
Surprise, surprise, at the end of the day, winning a majority of party member votes wins you the nomination.