Their argument that the superdelegates is undemocratic.

[LiberalFighter]

First, every one of the SD's hold their position because of an election. Governors, Senators, Representatives, and the President and Vice President were elected to those positions. Party leaders, meaning state chairs and vice chairs were elected within their state central committee. State DNC members were elected at state conventions by state delegates. Past Presidents, DNC Chairs, and former congressional leaders had held major elected positions. A form of emeritus staus.

Second, the Democratic National Convention is a DNC (Democratic National Committee) function. It is a Democratic Party organization and it is their event. It would be ridiculous to hold an event and not include their own members. That would be undemocratic. If anyone is not a Democrat and more importantly not involved as an activist in the Democratic Party they should not have a say in the party's organization.

It amazes me how little these people know about the Democratic Party and what it is and what it is not.

[Her Sister]

1. I like Superdelegates!

They have inside info on the candidates that might not be obvious otherwise! Info that might come out when it's too late! When we as Democrats find us stuck with a DUD, just like the GOP is now.

Trump is proving to be unfit in so many ways: Mentally and Emotionally stunted/unstable!

[LiberalFighter]

5. I agree. They are more likely to be privy to critical information that is needed.

But more importantly, even the voters are likely to change their mind in who to support after they have already voted and circumstances have changed. The superdelegates have the flexibility to change their support because they are not locked into a possible bad decision.

What happens if a top candidate dies in the middle of the primaries? Or decides to drop out for personal reasons? Or they are found to be ineligible? Or has a medical condition that calls into question a candidate being able to handle the position? With any of those situations that top candidate somehow will end up with the most pledged delegates. Getting rid of the superdelegates would leave the Democratic Party in a quandary. Every federal elected official and state party officers would run from that candidate. They would not expend any energy to help get that person elected.

We have a situation similar to that in our district. The voters decided to elect an unqualified candidate that has mental issues just because of his name in the primary. Unfortunately, there is little that the local party can do to have his name removed from the ballot. Because of is lack of qualifications the party will not make any effort to get him elected.

[TwilightZone]

2. It's just knee-jerk negativity because it didn't go their way.

They don't have to actually understand anything about it - it didn't help Sanders, so it's bad, by definition. It doesn't fit the narrative if they actually bother to understand why they're there and how the process works in the first place.

These are the same people who threw Elizabeth Warren under the bus and decided that her whole career was a sham because she is supporting the Democratic nominee for president.

[Cha]

3. It's just their latest Whne.. How many does make?

[NurseJackie]

24. Twelve cases?

2016 will not be a good year for California Whine.

[DURHAM D]

4. The argument is that Hillary Clinton appointed every one of them.

If you want to change the process one first needs to understand the process.

[LiberalFighter]

6. I know. I seriously doubt how it is all done.

And sadly, even the unpledged delegates likely don't know. This process has been in place since 1984 and very few if any are still around that went through it.

Just like they don't understand how it is determined each state receives their delegate allocation. They probably think they know but in reality they are wrong.

[mercuryblues]

7. Take away

all the Super delegates and Clinton still wins.
Force the SD to vote according to who won the state and Clinton still wins.

So what exactly is the real problem about SDs? that have been used for decades, without a problem. What is different in this election that makes SD all of a sudden "undemocratic"

[LiberalFighter]

8. It is likely because Sanders calls it a rigged system.

He decides to run as a Democrat ten minutes ago and then decides he doesn't like the rules. The rules should not be decided based on how he wants them.

[WhiteTara]

9. Let's see, the system has been in place for

30 years and no one even noticed or cared until people outside the party wanted to run it. Makes sense to me

[LiberalFighter]

11. Yes! Outsiders.

That also includes Sanders who just became a Democrat only for the purpose to get his name on the ballot.

[WhiteTara]

12. Well, he wanted the database too.

It was chocked full of voter names...even those for his opponent, which of course, his campaign felt entitled to use.

[LiberalFighter]

14. Well I hope after this he is locked out.

I just signed up with Bernie's campaign this week to be aware of what his campaign is doing. I should had done it sooner.

[WhiteTara]

15. Well, I hope if he stays in our party

he stops trashing us.

[LiberalFighter]

17. So far he hasn't demonstrated that he will do either.

There is only so much time before he needs to get off the pot.

[spooky3]

23. According to the DNC, the % of superdelegates

Was reduced from 20% to 15% from the last election to this one.

Luis Miranda said this during an interview about a week ago.

[still_one]

27. It also acts as a safety valve, rather intentional or unintentional, when a candidate has the most

pledged delegates, but falls slight short of the required number, it prevent chaos from taking over at the convention.

The ones that seem to have a problem with this are the ones who enjoy open primaries, and the caucus.

Historically, SD have always gone with the candidate that won the most pledged delegates

[wildeyed]

10. And the thing is, superDs have never overturned the will of the people.

They exist, IMO, for extreme situations like if Edwards had won and then his infidelities came out. I would be OK with them not declaring their support until their state voted, something like that. And the media should be showing pledged delegates numbers separate from the superD totals.

Sanders peeps seem to think that the early party support swayed the actual voters but I doubt most voters pay attention. I vote for who I like best and so do most others who are civic minded enough to show up regularly for those elections. We just didn't like Sanders and they seem to have a hard time reconciling themselves to that reality.

The two party system IS problematic, what with fewer and fewer people identifying with either. The Democratic Party (and GOP) is more a coalition than a party now. BOTH parties need to find ways to reconcile themselves with this reality or continue to pay the price. Sanders was a warning shot to the Dems. I don't know if the GOP will even survive Trump.

I REALLY think that fixing the gerrymander districts (and both parties are guilty of gerrymandering) would go a LONG way toward fixing the discontent we see in the general population. That is the main problem, IMO. The Dem Party and all of us should get behind making non-partisan boundaries committees a reality in all states. Parties lose a little power doing that, but they get to survive and it will tamp down discontent in the general population. Plus is is what our country needs right now for democracy to function again. Compromise is good.

[LiberalFighter]

13. I just as soon political parties were not involved in the district boundaries.

Or at least make it very difficult for them to based it on whether it benefits them. It would be better if it was non-partisan and it followed specific requirements and best reflected the overall state. So the deviation of the voting population should should be minimal when compared to the state legislative bodies. Also, as an example a state has 50 senate districts and 100 house districts they require that two house districts must fit completely within a senate district.

[displacedtexan]

22. Considering that lots of new voters either didn't register or learn about their state's party rules,

I doubt that supers were even on their radar until BS used their existence as proof every state he lost was rigged. If someone made a list of his excuses throughout the primary season, supers would just be one of many, many reasons he thinks he was cheated.

[Walk away]

16. I think it would be best if only actual Democrats can run as the Democratic nominee.

I'm pretty pissed off that my donations to the DNC were used to denigrate the DNC and my party.

[robbedvoter]

20. Somewhere in the DNC rules there is such a provision. "Bona fide D"

is also mentioned.

[KittyWampus]

18. they are essentially the 'republic' part of a democracy. We are not nationally

a direct democracy. Nor are we on the state level. Nor are we on the party level.

[robbedvoter]

19. 🐘🐘 right now would give anything to have them too

and if the attempt to take over the party by an interloper teaches us something is just how useful they may end up being. They had no role in this election - beyond rhetoric. But for future Sanders out there, bent on destroying the D party - I say, let's have more of them!

[Walk away]

21. Absoutely, any kook could use our party to legitimize their run!

2016 proves our vulnerability. We need to start enforcing the existing rules more.

[Thinkingabout]

25. Before there were the primaries the nominee was determined by the committe.

Each super delegate is free to make their choice, yes it is democratic.

[LiberalFighter]

28. It can be put that way. How can it be democratic when they are forced to support someone?

At least with those that are elected as delegates they voluntarily place their name on the ballot to support a specific candidate.

[Thinkingabout]

31. I am sure if a super delegate does not have to accept the responsibility of being

A super delegate so they are not forced.

[LiberalFighter]

32. If they are eliminated

but if the remain some want them to be committed based on turnout.

[Thinkingabout]

33. They should be making their decision based on the most qualified and electable.

[still_one]

26. Historically the super delegates always side with the candidate who won the most pledged delegates

Which part of "undemocratic" do they mean?

That Hillary has won the most votes, the most primaries, and the most pledged delegates

The ones who are being undemocratic are the ones who LOST the election

[Agnosticsherbet]

29. Not once, since 1984, have Superdelegates voted again the will of the Democratic voters

[misterhighwasted]

34. And THAT is bernie's problem with the SD's.

They're not voting for him.
And he's mad.

[wysi]

30. A private organization...

... does not have to be a democracy. Few are.

[Ellen Forradalom]

35. They are in place to prevent entryism

and another George McGovern disaster.

Consider them the Senate to the pledged delegates' House.