DNC “Unity Commission” to look at reforms to nomination process for 2020

[Mr. Morden]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/12/08/democrats-inch-closer-to-overhauling-how-they-would-pick-a-presidential-nominee/?utm_term=.ca7c477363c1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Former Kentuckian]

I really respect Sen. Tim Kaine for coming out so hard against superdelegates considering he was part of a campaign that benefitted from them so much.

[IceSpear]

I really respect Sen. Tim Kaine for coming out so hard against superdelegates considering he was part of a campaign that benefitted from them so much.

Kaine didn't benefit from them. For one thing, he never ran for president. Secondly, superdelegates were irrelevant as always, since Hillary won both the pledged delegates and popular vote in a landslide.

[Mr. Morden]

More live tweeting from FHQ:

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/939530356977491968
https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/939532130203422720
https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/939532678474366976
https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/939538257750175744

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

In fact, I feel more like the fact that they're still allowing caucuses as a fair and democratic nominatiom process is a farce.

The problem is that primaries are run by state governments.  So if the state government isn't going to hold a presidential primary, what are you supposed to do?  Especially if the GOP controls the state legislature, I'm not sure what kind of leverage the DNC could exert over them.

What they *could* do is make caucuses more primary-like.  E.g., there are some states already where you can show up to your caucus and just cast a ballot as if it were a primary.  It's run by the state party, but it's more primary-like than caucus-like, though still called a caucus.  The DNC could mandate that all caucuses be run like that, but it doesn't look like they're going to.

[The Mikado]

The superdelegate change would reduce them from ~800 to ~300, which is a pretty massive reduction in their overall power (from about 16% of overall delegates to ~6%).

[King Lear]

Unlike most other left-wing democrats I'm totally aganst eliminating superdelegates due to the fact the Democratic Party needs a insurance policy against some wealthy Trump-like celebrity or businessman (I.e. Kanye west, Oprah Winfrey, Marc Cuban, mark zuckerberg) from hijaking the party nomination. Remember if the republicans had superdelegates trump would not be in the White House today.

[Mr. Morden]

More on caucus changes here:

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/12/09/major-reform-2020-iowa-caucuses-include-absentee-voting-public-vote-totals/934913001/

[Former Kentuckian]

I really respect Sen. Tim Kaine for coming out so hard against superdelegates considering he was part of a campaign that benefitted from them so much.

Kaine didn't benefit from them. For one thing, he never ran for president. Secondly, superdelegates were irrelevant as always, since Hillary won both the pledged delegates and popular vote in a landslide.

The Democratic nominee needed 2,382 delegates to win. Hillary had 2,205 pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. Superdelegates created a sense of inevitability since Hillary started with hundreds of superdelegates before Iowa and the media included them in her totals despite the DNC saying not to. It was blamed for depressing turnout because of inevitability. And we'll never know the complete popular vote of the 2016 Democratic primaries because caucuses weren't required to release them.

If the superdelegates of states Bernie won had been required to vote like the voters of their states, things might have been different. And if caucuses, where Bernie did well, were required to release raw voter data, the popular vote may have been different. Maybe. Maybe not. But the reforms will hopefully level the playing field, even just a little.

[Former Kentuckian]

Unlike most other left-wing democrats I'm totally aganst eliminating superdelegates due to the fact the Democratic Party needs a insurance policy against some wealthy Trump-like celebrity or businessman (I.e. Kanye west, Oprah Winfrey, Marc Cuban, mark zuckerberg) from hijaking the party nomination. Remember if the republicans had superdelegates trump would not be in the White House today.

I don't know, I can see the 2016 superdelegates voting for someone like Oprah or Zuckerberg. I'm glad they'll be trimmed down for 2020.

[Rookie Yinzer]

The Democratic nominee needed 2,382 delegates to win. Hillary had 2,205 pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. Superdelegates created a sense of inevitability since Hillary started with hundreds of superdelegates before Iowa and the media included them in her totals despite the DNC saying not to. It was blamed for depressing turnout because of inevitability. And we'll never know the complete popular vote of the 2016 Democratic primaries because caucuses weren't required to release them.

If the superdelegates of states Bernie won had been required to vote like the voters of their states, things might have been different. And if caucuses, where Bernie did well, were required to release raw voter data, the popular vote may have been different. Maybe. Maybe not. But the reforms will hopefully level the playing field, even just a little.

Whether superdelegates were proportional, whether superdelegates were required to vote with their states, or whether they were eliminated altogether, Hillary Clinton would have won. The notion that she won solely because of them has been debunked numerous times.

I profoundly disagree with the notion that it depressed turnout. Sanders upset her in Michigan, and had her running scared in May running to WV, KY, and IN because he was keeping it close and providing terrible optics for the campaign of the presumptive nominee still losing primaries weeks before the convention.

I also find it interesting how there is no acknowledgment of how undemocratic caucuses are and how they favored the Sanders campaign. In several states that held both caucuses and primaries, Bernie performed well in the low turnout caucuses while Hillary beat him soundly in primaries where there was higher participation, and voters could vote Hillary in the privacy of a voting booth without being shouted down by Sanders supporters. Telling that Clinton won the Washington Primary which had three times as many voters as the caucus.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/washington-primary-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/484313/

 

[Former Kentuckian]

The Democratic nominee needed 2,382 delegates to win. Hillary had 2,205 pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. Superdelegates created a sense of inevitability since Hillary started with hundreds of superdelegates before Iowa and the media included them in her totals despite the DNC saying not to. It was blamed for depressing turnout because of inevitability. And we'll never know the complete popular vote of the 2016 Democratic primaries because caucuses weren't required to release them.

If the superdelegates of states Bernie won had been required to vote like the voters of their states, things might have been different. And if caucuses, where Bernie did well, were required to release raw voter data, the popular vote may have been different. Maybe. Maybe not. But the reforms will hopefully level the playing field, even just a little.

Whether superdelegates were proportional, whether superdelegates were required to vote with their states, or whether they were eliminated altogether, Hillary Clinton would have won. The notion that she won solely because of them has been debunked numerous times.

I profoundly disagree with the notion that it depressed turnout. Sanders upset her in Michigan, and had her running scared in May running to WV, KY, and IN because he was keeping it close and providing terrible optics for the campaign of the presumptive nominee still losing primaries weeks before the convention.

I also find it interesting how there is no acknowledgment of how undemocratic caucuses are and how they favored the Sanders campaign. In several states that held both caucuses and primaries, Bernie performed well in the low turnout caucuses while Hillary beat him soundly in primaries where there was higher participation, and voters could vote Hillary in the privacy of a voting booth without being shouted down by Sanders supporters. Telling that Clinton won the Washington Primary which had three times as many voters as the caucus.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/washington-primary-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/484313/

 

Hillary needed 2,382 delegates to win. She had 2,205 pledged. Superdelegates played a role somehow.

[Former Kentuckian]

The Democratic nominee needed 2,382 delegates to win. Hillary had 2,205 pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. Superdelegates created a sense of inevitability since Hillary started with hundreds of superdelegates before Iowa and the media included them in her totals despite the DNC saying not to. It was blamed for depressing turnout because of inevitability. And we'll never know the complete popular vote of the 2016 Democratic primaries because caucuses weren't required to release them.

If the superdelegates of states Bernie won had been required to vote like the voters of their states, things might have been different. And if caucuses, where Bernie did well, were required to release raw voter data, the popular vote may have been different. Maybe. Maybe not. But the reforms will hopefully level the playing field, even just a little.

Whether superdelegates were proportional, whether superdelegates were required to vote with their states, or whether they were eliminated altogether, Hillary Clinton would have won. The notion that she won solely because of them has been debunked numerous times.

I profoundly disagree with the notion that it depressed turnout. Sanders upset her in Michigan, and had her running scared in May running to WV, KY, and IN because he was keeping it close and providing terrible optics for the campaign of the presumptive nominee still losing primaries weeks before the convention.

I also find it interesting how there is no acknowledgment of how undemocratic caucuses are and how they favored the Sanders campaign. In several states that held both caucuses and primaries, Bernie performed well in the low turnout caucuses while Hillary beat him soundly in primaries where there was higher participation, and voters could vote Hillary in the privacy of a voting booth without being shouted down by Sanders supporters. Telling that Clinton won the Washington Primary which had three times as many voters as the caucus.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/washington-primary-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/484313/

 

And considering Hillary won Iowa because of a coin toss, I think Bernie and his fans know the caucuses suck and that's why they are also (thankfully) being reformed to require written votes, absentee votes, and will now be required to release vote tallies and come up with more democratic ways to break ties

[Rookie Yinzer]

Hillary needed 2,382 delegates to win. She had 2,205 pledged. Superdelegates played a role somehow.

There were 4,051 pledged delegates. 2,205 is more than a majority of these delegates. If superdelegates were not used in the Democratic primary she would only need 2,026 bound delegates to win. She surpassed that and would have won the primary regardless.

[Former Kentuckian]

Hillary needed 2,382 delegates to win. She had 2,205 pledged. Superdelegates played a role somehow.

There were 4,051 pledged delegates. 2,205 is a majority of these delegates. If superdelegates were not used in the Democratic primary she would only need 2,026 bound delegates to win. She surpassed that and would have won the primary regardless.

But the problem is they were used in the primary and that's how she won. She didn't win from pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. That's the issue and that's why there's a Unity Commission. And that's why her own VP nominee is against superdelegates.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Hillary needed 2,382 delegates to win. She had 2,205 pledged. Superdelegates played a role somehow.

There were 4,051 pledged delegates. 2,205 is a majority of these delegates. If superdelegates were not used in the Democratic primary she would only need 2,026 bound delegates to win. She surpassed that and would have won the primary regardless.

But the problem is they were used in the primary and that's how she won. She didn't win from pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. That's the issue and that's why there's a Unity Commission. And that's why her own VP nominee is against superdelegates.

Either way, I agree that their role should be reduced but not eliminated totally. The last thing I want is a Trump-like figure hijacking our party by winning a plurality of the vote, because fifty other candidates who can't take a hint cannibalize the opposition vote.

[Former Kentuckian]

Hillary needed 2,382 delegates to win. She had 2,205 pledged. Superdelegates played a role somehow.

There were 4,051 pledged delegates. 2,205 is a majority of these delegates. If superdelegates were not used in the Democratic primary she would only need 2,026 bound delegates to win. She surpassed that and would have won the primary regardless.

But the problem is they were used in the primary and that's how she won. She didn't win from pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. That's the issue and that's why there's a Unity Commission. And that's why her own VP nominee is against superdelegates.

Either way, I agree that their role should be reduced but not eliminated totally. The last thing I want is a Trump-like figure hijacking our party by winning a plurality of the vote, because fifty other candidates who can't take a hint cannibalize the opposition vote.

I hope I didn't seem rude or like I was arguing. This kind of debate is important, and otherwise I mostly agree with everything you write here on the forums.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Hillary needed 2,382 delegates to win. She had 2,205 pledged. Superdelegates played a role somehow.

There were 4,051 pledged delegates. 2,205 is a majority of these delegates. If superdelegates were not used in the Democratic primary she would only need 2,026 bound delegates to win. She surpassed that and would have won the primary regardless.

But the problem is they were used in the primary and that's how she won. She didn't win from pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. That's the issue and that's why there's a Unity Commission. And that's why her own VP nominee is against superdelegates.

Either way, I agree that their role should be reduced but not eliminated totally. The last thing I want is a Trump-like figure hijacking our party by winning a plurality of the vote, because fifty other candidates who can't take a hint cannibalize the opposition vote.

I hope I didn't seem rude or like I was arguing. This kind of debate is important, and otherwise I mostly agree with everything you write here on the forums.

No, not at all!

[Shadows]

If you are arguing for Superdelegates to overturn the will of the primary voters then what you are essentially arguing is for the end of Democracy. Can you really say you oppose authoritarians like Trump & then pretend to support such policies?

Why not have a Super-Delegate system for the GE? Let Congressional Members be GE Super-delegates who will over-turn the will of voters if a Trump type figure wins. This is also highly discretionary, the whole process is clandestine, stinks & is corrupt.

Also, if the day comes where the Super-Delegates over-turn the will of the voters, that will essentially destroy the Democratic party forever. Probably will create a new party. Do you really have the best interests of your party when you want it to end? In the end, democracy means trusting the voters to make good, rational & seemingly bad decisions. You can't have Selective Democracy for when the outcome matches your preferences. In the end, it boils down to if you believe in a Democracy. Also, I would think the Democratic electorate is smart enough not to elect Trump & that people must do a better job to win the battle of ideas & prevent that kind of a candidate from winning anywhere.

[Rookie Yinzer]

What I want is no different than a contested convention. Deciding not to nominate a fringe candidate who cobbled together 35-40 percent of the electorate because they stood out in a crowded field is not undermining democracy or overturning the will of the people. More people voted against said candidate, and there should be something in place to ensure the most electable candidate is put forth.

If 2016 had a field of progressives and one blue dog Democrat (anti-choice/thinks SSM should be left up to the states), with said blue dog Democrat "winning" with 36.5 percent of the vote by let's say winning all the Southern primaries and nothing more, you would be fine with this candidate receiving the nomination even though said person clearly isn't the direction the majority of the party want to go in? I doubt that.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm all for ditching superdelegates, but I think the DNC is potentially going to reduce their number substantially without actually thinking through the fact that it's going to increase the chances of a contested convention.  Not that a contested convention would necessarily be the end of the world, but they should think carefully about how to handle such a thing happening, rather than just blunder into it by accident.

Unfortunately, there's no easy way to switch to something like instant runoff voting because, as mentioned earlier, the primaries are run by state governments, and the state governments aren't going to change their balloting procedures just because the DNC tells them to.  The DNC should think through how they would deal with a contested convention if it happens, because if they mishandle it, it could get ugly.

[YE]

Superdelegates should exist if no candidate wins a majority of the pledges delegates. Otherwise, they shouldn't. Cacuses are kinda a waste if the state holds a primary for statewide races, but as long as they allow absentees, they are fine.

[junior chįmp]

I'm all for ditching superdelegates, but I think the DNC is potentially going to reduce their number substantially without actually thinking through the fact that it's going to increase the chances of a contested convention.  Not that a contested convention would necessarily be the end of the world, but they should think carefully about how to handle such a thing happening, rather than just blunder into it by accident.

Unfortunately, there's no easy way to switch to something like instant runoff voting because, as mentioned earlier, the primaries are run by state governments, and the state governments aren't going to change their balloting procedures just because the DNC tells them to.  The DNC should think through how they would deal with a contested convention if it happens, because if they mishandle it, it could get ugly.

I could be wrong but I read that the reduced superdelegates they have left will go to who comes in first place in each of the states. There will be some superdelegates put aside for party officers, ex-presidents, and some leadership people

[IceSpear]

I really respect Sen. Tim Kaine for coming out so hard against superdelegates considering he was part of a campaign that benefitted from them so much.

Kaine didn't benefit from them. For one thing, he never ran for president. Secondly, superdelegates were irrelevant as always, since Hillary won both the pledged delegates and popular vote in a landslide.

The Democratic nominee needed 2,382 delegates to win. Hillary had 2,205 pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. Superdelegates created a sense of inevitability since Hillary started with hundreds of superdelegates before Iowa and the media included them in her totals despite the DNC saying not to. It was blamed for depressing turnout because of inevitability. And we'll never know the complete popular vote of the 2016 Democratic primaries because caucuses weren't required to release them.

If the superdelegates of states Bernie won had been required to vote like the voters of their states, things might have been different. And if caucuses, where Bernie did well, were required to release raw voter data, the popular vote may have been different. Maybe. Maybe not. But the reforms will hopefully level the playing field, even just a little.

You're being deliberately obtuse here. If you remove the superdelegates completely, she wins easily. The reason she "needed them to hit a majority" was because there was such a huge amount of them, so anybody would "need them" in a race that is even remotely contested.

Nobody voted based off Hillary being inevitable. If they did, Bernie would not have gotten 43% of the vote. He continued to win states, some by a landslide, long after Hillary's nomination was mathematically certain. So this narrative about voters being swayed by a CNN delegate count doesn't hold water.

If superdelegates voted how their state voted, then Hillary would've won by an even bigger margin in the delegate count since she won most of the big states. If you include the popular vote for caucuses, most of which were in low population states and thus would not impact it much, maybe Hillary wins by 10-11 points instead of 12 points. You're grasping at straws here.

I do agree with you that it's a good thing they're getting dramatically scaled back. They're a nuisance and accomplish nothing.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Superdelegates should exist if no candidate wins a majority of the pledges delegates. Otherwise, they shouldn't. Cacuses are kinda a waste if the state holds a primary for statewide races, but as long as they allow absentees, they are fine.

Exactly. It's so simple, let superdelegates exist but make them choose only if no candidate has a majority of pledged delegates. It's so simple that I wonder why it hasn't been adopted yet.