Dems considering eliminating superdelegates from nominating process

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by lowendlinux, Mar 9, 2018.

?

Should the Democrat Party Eliminate Superdelegates

  1. Yes

    26 vote(s)
    92.9%
  2. No

    2 vote(s)
    7.1%
  1. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #1
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-process/ar-BBK2tBY?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartandhp

    I'm glad someone is finally forcing the issue.
     
  2. Plutonius macrumors 604

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    #2
    This article shows that the Democrat party is seriously discussing getting rid of the superdelegates in a primary. Do you think that it's a good idea and that the DNC will want to give up the power ?

    One thing to consider is that Trump probably would not have got picked as the Republican candidate if the Republicans had superdelegates.
     
  3. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #3
    they were designed to thwart so called "democrats" like Lyndon Larouche or David Duke.
     
  4. IWantItThatWay Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    #4
    Superdelegates during the GOP primaries would have kept Trump from winning.

    Sanders lost because only young whites support him. If you want to win the Democratic primaries, you need black voters and old white women.
     
  5. DanielDD macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Location:
    Portugal
    #5
    Great, I'm all in favour of reducing unnecessary delegation chains
     
  6. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #6
    Let's do away with the electoral college while we're at it, take gerrymandering out of the equation. Not only will it make everyone's vote count, it will also eliminate forcing candidates to capitulate to the radicals (on either side) just to win their respective districts.
     
  7. DanielDD macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Location:
    Portugal
    #7
    Trump won the primaries because Republican dropouts bandwagoned on his campaign. They could have stopped it, if they supported someone else
     
  8. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #8
    Not sure what choice they had, Trump was on a wave and everyone who tried to stop him got steamrolled. At that point for them it was either get on it with him or drop completely.
     
  9. IWantItThatWay Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    #9
    No. The only way they could have beat Trump was to force a contested convention, but the second Trump won Indiana that was impossible. Hell, it was pretty much over the second he won Super Tuesday.

    Now if you meant if Jeb!, Kasich, Fiorina, and some others dropped out before Iowa and coalesced around Rubio then maybe. A three way race between Trump, Cruz, and Rubio would have likely led to a contested convention, or a small Trump win.
     
  10. DanielDD, Mar 9, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2018

    DanielDD macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Location:
    Portugal
    #10
    Trump got 44.95% of the vote. Cruz, Rubio and Kasich got more than 50% of the votes. They should have coordinated themselves and not throw their personal interests in front of the party. Republican leaders made him a favour and that is what made Trump unbeatable.

    These candidates should coalesce to prevent from Trump getting the nomination. And they failed miserably at it.
     
  11. IWantItThatWay Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    #11
    45% out of 12 or so challengers (some quit before Iowa) is actually really good.

    Obama got only 48% in 2008 against one challenger (and lost the popular vote btw).
     
  12. DanielDD macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Location:
    Portugal
    #12
    3 of which could easily win the primary were they wise enough to support each other instead of bandwagoning with Trump's campaign. Isn't the whole point of our representatives to protect us from this? That's my point. They didn't do that.
     
  13. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #13
    It’s their convention so they can do what they want. Personally I think superdelegates are a good idea so they can avoid having some nut that turns out to be the left’s version of Trump get the nomination.
     
  14. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #14
    I think we should get rid of all delegates and go to one person, one vote.
     
  15. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #15
    Wow, here’s an argument I haven’t seen in a long time. Obama lost the popular primary vote in 2008 only if you count Michigan, which is profoundly unreasonable.
     
  16. IWantItThatWay Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    #16
    Why?
     
  17. v0lume4 macrumors 68000

    v0lume4

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    #17
    That same "nut" won, even if the Republicans didn't like it. It's what the PEOPLE voted for.

    The candidate (Hillary) that was shoehorned in by the politicians that "know better" lost. Maybe the super delegates aren't such a good idea.
     
  18. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #18
    But then people that live in low population states would be under represented. Gerrymandering is an issue and both sides are guilty of.

    Just because something didn’t turn out your way means we need to change the system that “caused you to lose”.
     
  19. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #19
    It appears my post wasn't even read and that my point was totally missed. I don't care what side one is on or wins or loses. Gerrymandering targets one or the other based on party lines and as long as that's the case, the general population is not represented as a whole.
     
  20. jdechko macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    #20
    It's not just low-population states that are underrepresented in the EC. Think about conservatives in solid blue states like California or New York, and liberals in solid red states like Texas. None of those states are "low population", but in almost every case, the minority vote simply doesn't count.

    One of biggest issues is that most states have a "winner take all" EC process: only Nebraska and Maine have a process to split EC votes. Due to this, it is, in fact, possible to win a presidential election with only about 20-25% of the popular vote. I know I'm massively simplifying the solution, but if EC votes were split along some percentage it would do 2 things. 1) Everyone's vote would count more equally, and 2) it may force candidates to spend time & money in other states. The historical "swing" states could be de-emphasized.
     
  21. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #21
    Clinton would have won the primary even without superdelegates.
     
  22. Zenithal macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #22
    Not being familiar with DNC stuff, is this like your guys' Marvel Superheroes?
     
  23. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #23
    The DNC invalidated and asked the candidates not to participate in the Michigan primary because the primary didn’t comply with their scheduling requirements. Obama complied and his name wasn’t on the ballot, but Hillary’s was.
     
  24. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #24
    I was agreeing with you on that statement that it is an issue that both sides are guilty of. Apologies for coming off if I missed it.
     
  25. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #25
    Eliminate the super-delegates. It's about bloody time, as people here in the UK would say.
     

Share This Page

53 March 9, 2018