Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2017, 12:27:14 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  Dems agree to reform supers and expand participation in caucuses and primaries
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Dems agree to reform supers and expand participation in caucuses and primaries  (Read 574 times)
Likely Voter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8385


View Profile
« on: July 23, 2016, 07:41:49 pm »
Ignore

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/23/democrats-vote-to-bind-most-superdelegates-to-state-primary-results/


Quote
the Democratic Party's rules committee voted to created a "Unity Commission" that would dramatically limit the role of convention "superdelegates," binding roughly two-thirds of them to the results of state primaries and caucuses.
...
Members of Congress, Governors, and distinguished party leaders remain unpledged...remaining unpledged delegates be required to cast their vote at the Convention for candidates in proportion to the vote received for each candidate in their state
...
other guidelines for the commission included a mix of Clinton and Sanders ideas, including expanding "eligible voters' ability to participate in the caucuses" in caucus states (a gripe of Clinton's campaign) and encouraging "the involvement in all elections of unaffiliated or new voters who seek to join the Democratic Party through same-day registration and re-registration" (a Sanders demand).
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8385


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2016, 07:49:26 pm »
Ignore

Looks like a good compromise although I really don't see the point in having super delegates that are bound to the state vote. Then they arent supers, they are just more bound delegates. I assume the media will just add their votes to the bound votes and not refer to them as supers in the future, limiting that to the actual unbound supers.

As for caucuses, they have to find a way to increase participation in those. Not sure how, but the participation rates for caucuses is embarrassing small and not representative of the electorate.  Having it be easier for non-Dems to vote in primaries is find, but I still think that people should be required to register with the party (but allow same day registration). Basically you got to join to vote, but make it easy to join (no more requiring people to do it months ahead of time).
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4493
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2016, 09:03:23 pm »
Ignore

Looks like a good compromise although I really don't see the point in having super delegates that are bound to the state vote. Then they arent supers, they are just more bound delegates. I assume the media will just add their votes to the bound votes and not refer to them as supers in the future, limiting that to the actual unbound supers.
The Republicans have this.  Each state has 3 RNC members as delegates, who are bound by the state's results.  Remember, other things happen at conventions besides the vote for the nominee.  Beyond even the rules and platform votes, conventions are opportunities for networking and collaboration that influential people in the party would want to be a part of.
Logged
AMA IL TUO PRESIDENTE!
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44794
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2016, 03:11:22 am »
Ignore

Great news.
Logged

Our numbers are dwindling. Our words are confused.
Some of them have been twisted by the enemy
until they can no longer be recognized.

Now what is wrong, or false, in what we have said?
Just some parts, or everything?
On whom can we still rely? Are we survivors, cast
away by the current? Will we be left behind,
no longer understanding anyone and being understood by no one?
Must we rely on luck?

This is what you ask. Expect
no answer but your own.


Bertolt Brecht
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 33005
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2017, 09:17:17 am »
Ignore

*bump*

RCP has a new story out about one drawback of either eliminating supers or limiting their flexibility re: who they can vote for.  You increase the chances of a contested convention:

link

If the Dems are going to limit the options for supers, they should think through some other ways to either prevent a contested convention or make it run smoothly.  Because the fact that the Dems use proportional allocation for their delegate allocation makes a contested con more likely for them than it is for the GOP.

The other thing that people don't really talk about with supers is what about the role of delegates for candidates who've dropped out?  Don't they become free agents as well once the candidate they're pledged to is out of the race?  Doesn't that also present some problems re: how democratic the process is, and is there any way to fix it?
Logged

My magnum opus is now complete.  Read the complete "The Adventures of Hobo Orgy Guy & Blondie" (now in paperback).

Watch Dave being briefed by the mods.

Being a moderator is basically like one giant party.  Except you're the one ruining the party and everyone hates you.
Justice Jbrase
Jbrase
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6344
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2017, 12:09:28 pm »
Ignore

But contested conventions would make things so much more fun Cheesy
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines