Do you support the Dem's super delegate system the way it is?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:45:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Do you support the Dem's super delegate system the way it is?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: skip
#1
yes
 
#2
no
 
#3
write in
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 101

Author Topic: Do you support the Dem's super delegate system the way it is?  (Read 11190 times)
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2016, 01:51:09 AM »

As a Republican, I wish we had the same system the Dems did, except with more superdelegates.
Logged
beaver2.0
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,769


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -0.52

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 20, 2016, 09:28:20 AM »

I don't have a huge problem with it.

A political party by definition consists not only of its supporters in the electorate (the voters), but also the party's elected officials in government (as well as the party as an organization). I don't think its fundamentally wrong for that other aspect of the party to have a say in the presidential nominating process. 
Maybe fewer, but this overall.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2016, 09:22:45 AM »

No. It's undemocratic.
Logged
Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.00


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 13, 2016, 10:47:14 AM »

It gives an unfair advantage to the establishment candidates. They should be able to start with an equal playing field which is why I think they should be abolished.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 14, 2016, 11:31:19 AM »

Yeah. The people's voice is important, but ultimately the party's best interests should be the decider in non-landslide situations.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 14, 2016, 05:05:49 PM »

It's annoying every cycle and probably the DNC members are fed up with it at this point themselves.

That said, there's a case for them in nearly-contested conventions, to prevent some third candidate as acting as too much of a kingmaker/spoiler.  "The Party" should get to decide ties, or equivalents to the GOP 2016 race where there would be no clear majority under the Democratic system.

My proposed reforms:

1) Superdelegates are, for most purposes, treated as a separate class of pledged PLEO delegates. That is, they are proportionally bound based on the results in their jurisdiction.  There's a downside to this of course, in that DC and MD voters are then way over-represented, but it's a minor ill.

2) After all credentials business has been settled at the convention, a determination is made whether any one candidate will have a majority on the first ballot.  (This may take some wind out of the sails of the process, but is necessary to prevent pro forma first ballots in situations with an actual contested convention).  If that's the case, nothing changes.  Otherwise, all superdelegates are released to vote their conscience on the first ballot.

3) All states must bind their delegations based on the raw vote totals in the first stage of any process. No Clark or Polk County shenanigans, no state delegate equivalents, etc.

4) For any state that uses a caucus (Iowa excepting), all superdelegates and pledged PLEO delegates are stripped of their voting privileges on all matters at the convention.  All other delegates from the state receive only a half-vote at the convention.  No need to go full Michigan/Florida on these states yet, as switching over may be difficult.  Iowa gets a pass here, as that battle isn't worth it and they have very high turnout anyway.

Basically, the superdelegates are still around if they need to be, but this makes sure they can't overturn a majority of the voters.
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 17, 2016, 11:13:49 PM »

As a non-American, I don't think there's anything essential about the democratic nature of the selection process to begin with. Most democracies don't have primaries of any sort and still seem to function fairly well.

But to the extent there is a desire for "the will of the primary voters", I don't see anything wrong with them existing. I don't there is much of a chance of them ever being used in the sort of nefarious way a lot of their opponents fear. That was supposed to happen in 2008, but it didn't - the supers all flipped to the winner later. I don't ever see them "overruling the will of the voters" unless there is some clear ambiguity to what the voters actually want (e.g. a plurality winner, or an early frontrunner who collapsed near the end)
Logged
Lothal1
Rookie
**
Posts: 228
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 23, 2016, 04:10:54 PM »

It's perfectly fine for super delegates to exist as it is the Party that is supposed to choose their nominee, not the people.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 23, 2016, 09:31:00 PM »

No. It's never actually been used to alter the outcome, only serves to stoke resentment against the party itself, and any legitimate need for such a system (major scandal, death, etc) can be replaced by provisions that allow a large segment of pledged delegates (60% or 2/3s) to overturn their bound commitments in the event of a damaged candidate who happens to be the presumptive nominee.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 24, 2016, 07:42:15 AM »

Yes, and allow me to explain why.  First of all, superdelegates only make up a very small fraction of the total number of delegates on the Dem side--so small that they have never been able to influence the nomination on their own (at least to date).  Their vote is equal to that of a pledged delegate, not greater.  And it only seems fair that elected officials who are members of the party should be seated as delegates and vote for whichever candidate they support. 

Because superdelegates are unpledged, they can change candidates at any time before the convention, and frequently have.  Although Hillary Clinton had a significant lead in superdelegates for most of the 2008 campaign, many of them switched over to Obama after it became clear he would win the nomination, and Obama ended up winning a majority of them at the convention.  So while it seems undemocratic to use superdelegates, their influence has been greatly overstated by the news media.  They help to maintain stability and prevent the nomination of candidates that can undermine party unity.  If the GOP had this system in place, then superdelegates may have been able to stop Trump from becoming the presumptive nominee.  But because they don't, the party now has a nominee who threatens to divide the party and ensure defeat in November.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 24, 2016, 07:47:27 AM »

As a Republican, I wish we had the same system the Dems did, except with more superdelegates.

I don't have a huge problem with it.

A political party by definition consists not only of its supporters in the electorate (the voters), but also the party's elected officials in government (as well as the party as an organization). I don't think its fundamentally wrong for that other aspect of the party to have a say in the presidential nominating process. 
Maybe fewer, but this overall.
Completely agree with both of you.
Logged
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,368
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 19, 2016, 04:35:24 PM »

Absolutely, and the only change we need is to make every open primary closed. The superdelegates serve as a check on the whacko base. While Clinton almost got an outright majority without superdelegates, we seriously need a primary system in place to prevent a left-wing version of Donald Trump from happening 4-8 years from now.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 21, 2016, 11:16:32 PM »

As a Republican, I wish we had the same system the Dems did, except with more superdelegates.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 22, 2016, 01:34:34 PM »

As a Republican, I wish we had the same system the Dems did, except with more superdelegates.

I don't think that really works. Look at what would likely have happened if Bernie had a majority of the Dem elected delegates, but lost on superdelegates. There would have been a tremendous public uproar about their votes not counting, etc. It's even possible that would have been enough to drive Sanders to run under a third party. At least with a system of elected pledged delegates that outcome can't happen.

The superdelegate system was intended as a hybrid between the system of 50 years ago where state county chairman and similar insiders drove the nomination process and the push for public primaries for delegates. But once there is a significant role for the public in delegate selection, I don't see how the public would accept overruling the primary results by insiders.

If one is unhappy with outsiders taking over a nomination, the only other option is to return to the system that existed before 1970. Then presidential primaries would go back to being used mostly as beauty contests to gauge support for candidates with less national name ID. The parties would have to make it clear that the parties will select the nominees as they do for US third parties and in Europe. I don't think that would be very popular for the major parties in the US after so many decades of active primaries.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2016, 11:06:16 PM »

More proportional allocation would have done more to stop Trump or anything like him than super delegates would have, anyway.

This is true and I've pointed this out before that Trump could not have been nominated under the Democratic system even without superdelegates.
Logged
Thunderbird is the word
Zen Lunatic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,021


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 28, 2016, 01:51:38 PM »

Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,141
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 28, 2016, 02:04:30 PM »

I don't have a huge problem with it.

A political party by definition consists not only of its supporters in the electorate (the voters), but also the party's elected officials in government (as well as the party as an organization). I don't think its fundamentally wrong for that other aspect of the party to have a say in the presidential nominating process. 
Totally agree.
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 28, 2016, 04:36:52 PM »

No. They would only matter in a primary where superdelegates override pledged delegate count, and if that happens, the nominee would be severely damaged. And if they don't decide the nomination, then not having them makes almost no difference.
Logged
TrumpCard
Rookie
**
Posts: 46
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: September 02, 2016, 08:30:48 AM »

No and it's part of why I'm a Republican.  They were all about the popular vote until it comes to their own primaries and then it's up to the party elders to decide if their constituents made the right choice.  I love it.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: September 02, 2016, 09:36:08 AM »

No and it's part of why I'm a Republican.  They were all about the popular vote until it comes to their own primaries and then it's up to the party elders to decide if their constituents made the right choice.  I love it.

The mechanics of the primary system is part of why you're a Republican? That seems insane.

Especially since the Republican primary system is so insanely jumbled.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: September 02, 2016, 03:56:09 PM »

As a Republican, I wish we had the same system the Dems did, except with more superdelegates.

Why the hell would you want superdelegates???

So trump is denied the nomination
Logged
‼realJohnEwards‼
MatteKudasai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,867
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: September 03, 2016, 10:57:17 PM »

Superdelegates are pretty bad. I'm with Kal--either be honest that it's chosen by the party, or make it much more democratic.

What we really need is a better electoral system to keep these major parties accountable, in addition to representing those pesky grassroots "unelectable" wackos.

I think letting the elected officials have a say in the ticket they're going to have to run under is fine.

We've just got a set of cowardly and myopic elected officials right now.

Wait, you basically said "the system's okay, it's just that we have inadequete people running it. But in the future we'll have good people running it!"

You have WAY too much faith in authority. Tongue

Winning is fighting for your principles.

Clinton's a little bit to the right of me on some things (I still agree with her on 92% of issues), while Sanders' is more in line (~95%). Republicans, meanwhile are entirely disagreeable.

Bernie's actually doing significantly better than Hillary in General Election polls. So...

"But Leinad, GE polls this far out are trash!"

Exactly. General Election polls, at this point, are mostly about name ID. Polls in general are, frankly. Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for over two decades, Bernie Sanders has been unknown to most people since a year ago.

"But Leinad, they'll hammer Bernie for being a 'socialist!'"

And? They hammered Obama for being a socialist, AND a Muslim, AND a Kenyan, AND a reincarnation of Saul Freaking Alinsky. Besides, conservative media will have much more fun with Clinton's baggage than Sanders's.

Sad  I'm starting to wonder about this, especially with all of the endless email bullcrap... maybe Sanders would have been a better candidate after all. Ah well.
Logged
Young Conservative
youngconservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: September 07, 2016, 06:58:45 PM »

no (sane)
Logged
BaldEagle1991
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,660
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: September 10, 2016, 09:53:00 AM »

Eliminate the superdelegates, then I'd vote yes.
Logged
Hilldog
Rookie
**
Posts: 117
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: September 25, 2016, 09:11:54 PM »

It's funny how Democrats are all about the popular vote in the general election, but when it comes to their party, the elders have to make sure the people made the right choice.  So much for the popular vote right? It's a horrible system.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 15 queries.