Will Sanders manage to remove superdelegates from future contests?

[SillyAmerican]

On the talking heads on Sunday, May 22nd:

Per comments made to Jake Tapper of CNN:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Per comments made to John Dickerson on Face the Nation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you agree or disagree with Senator Sanders that superdelegates should not declare prior to the campaigns getting under way? Would future contests of the Democratic party be better off without the use of superdelegates (or at least with better rules about when they declare)?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

While I see super delegates as a necessary and important check on the voters, who have shown this year that they cannot be blindly trusted to pick a nominee on their own; I don't agree with Hillary using her early endorsements to scare away potential opponents, which she did do. I don't see anything wrong with a ban on any super delegate endorsing anyone if it is more than a month before Iowa.

[Maxwell]

I don't think superdelegates should exist.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Hopefully not.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I wish Senile Sanders would remove himself from future "contests."

[Hammy]

I personally agree with removing the superdelegates so this whole talk of overriding the popular vote can be avoided in the future.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Yes, superdelegates are only okay when they're not endorsing Hillary Clinton.

[Ogre Mage]

My guess is a compromise will be reached where the number of superdelegates is significantly reduced but not eliminated. 

[President Johnson]

Likely not. But I hope so, good luck Bernard.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I personally agree with removing the superdelegates so this whole talk of overriding the popular vote can be avoided in the future.

Guess I am part of the "Vocal Minority" on Atlas. 

[Adam Griffin]

The problem with getting rid of them, as has already been demonstrated in this thread, is that half of the party in any election where they're relevant locks down and takes it as a personal affront to their chosen candidate. So, a conversation that should look like "should superdelegates exist?" turns into one of "you wouldn't feel that way if it was your candidate dominating because of them".

The party should do away with them. They've served no tangible purpose since their inception with regard to preventing a disastrous decision and any other purposes they might serve can be replaced by a broader set of reforms to the primary and convention system. All they do is sow discord among those who don't understand political math (which is a huge percentage of the population, and even the voting population).

[Xing]

Hopefully their influence will be reduced, at least.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Obama also had only a handful of superdelegates supporting him compared to Hillary in 2008.
But then he started winning and more came to him.
Maybe ol' Bernie should have tried the same strategy instead of constantly bitching and whining like a bride left at the altar.

[Sorenroy]

If any of you watch John Oliver's Last Week Tonight, he gives a pritty good summary of why superdelegates are awful when he says this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Hermit For Peace]

Hopefully not. We can't call the voting public "stupid" and "low informed voters" and other such labels and expect them to vote intelligently.

I am FOR superdelegates at this point because hopefully they would make sure someone like Bernie or Trump wouldn't get elected -- but I see it's not going to work for the GOP this time around.

[Virginiá]

The party should do away with them. They've served no tangible purpose since their inception with regard to preventing a disastrous decision and any other purposes they might serve can be replaced by a broader set of reforms to the primary and convention system. All they do is sow discord among those who don't understand political math (which is a huge percentage of the population, and even the voting population).

What about stopping a disease like Trump from infecting the party and ruining years of hard work in building up support among voters? After seeing him rip apart the GOP, I can't see how getting rid of them entirely would be acceptable.

How about reducing the number of superdelegates by a 1/3rd or more, then enforcing rules that no one can court superdelegates until after the last primary? I know that's really impossible to enforce, but they can impose large penalties if anyone is caught doing it before June, that way it becomes very risky. In addition, they could also force all the superdelegates from a state to vote for a candidate if they win over 70% in that state. These rules could go a long way in reducing the possibility of public outrage during the primary.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I wish out of principle, but it's doubtful. Especially not with the way he's been conducting himself recently.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^ The GOP doesn't have superdelegates in the same respect. Many of their unbound delegates are elected during the primaries, from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, the territories, and this year, North Dakota. Many of them are elected on the basis that they are likely to support a given candidate; so even though they can change their mind after being elected, they almost never will. A lot of the rest are state party chairs, who can't endorse until the convention because they are state party chairs. In the end, the GOP supers number around 160, the Dems have 714. So the GOP has much less of an ability to prevent an undesirable nominee than the DEMS do.

[Holmes]

I don't think they should be removed. But maybe something like this:

Hopefully their influence will be reduced, at least.

Which can maybe be accomplished by not allowing them to voice who they'll vote for until after their state votes? Or after the primary season is over? Or maybe just count them as half votes?

[Fuzzy Bear]

In the unlikely event that Hillary Clinton is indicted before the convention, there may be enough superdelegates to keep her from a majority on the 1st ballot if she's selfish enough not to withdraw.

[beaver2.0]

No.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Doubtful since they saw what happened to the GOP.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I wish out of principle, but it's doubtful. Especially not with the way he's been conducting himself recently.

He's a selfish, cranky, deluded little man, nothing short of a sore loser.

Why can't he just go the way of Ron Paul and take his "revolution" to late-night infomercials warning us about how the grid is going to collapse and how we are on the brink of a financial precipice.

#DropOutBernie