Big Bernie Win: DNC to Reduce "Super Delegates" by 60%

[luckyshot]

This would be a definite step in the right direction, reducing "super-delegates" from 20% of votes determining the Democratic nominee in 2016 to just 8% in 2020.

This change is proposed by the DNC Unity Reform Commission, which was set up after the 2016 primary election to try "unite the party" (keep Bernie Sanders supporters). The Commission is made up of 21 members: 10 who were appointed by Clinton, 8 appointed by Sanders, and 3 appointed by (DNC chair) Tom Perez. The Commission also recommended requiring all 50 states to allow same-day party affiliation switches, essentially making all Democratic primaries "open."

The DNC Rules and Bylaws committee still has to vote on whether or not to accept the Commission's recommendations.

Sanders said he was "extremely pleased" by the commission's work, adding, "Now it is incumbent on the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws committee and the membership of the DNC to enact these critical reforms as soon as possible."


https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/sweet-democratic-party-superdelegates-wont-be-so-super-in-2020/

 

[Rational Poster]

All the superdelegates could have voted for Bernie and he would have still lost, iirc.

Edit: Sorry, it was like 3/4.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Strongly disagree that it's a move in the right direction. Democrats should look at what happened to Republicans and realize that their advantage is not superior voters but superior institutions and earned trust in those institutions.

 

[Rational Poster]

This change wouldn't have helped Bernie at all last election.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This change wouldn't have helped Bernie at all last election.

But it would help get us President Roseanne or something.

 

[waiguoren]

If multiple candidates run in the primary and the race is competitive, this change will probably lead to a brokered convention. I think a change to winner-take-all delegate allocation for primary states would have been a better choice.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

It doesn't matter because when the DNC runs Dwayne Johnson in 2020 everyone will smell what the Rock is cooking.

 

[HomerThompson]

I like it. I'm not worried about electing our own Trump, @Jack V Savage. The average IQ on the left is a solid 20 points higher than it is on the right. Taking the primary process further away from the party bosses is a good thing.

Also, acting like this wouldn't have helped Bernie is silly. Shitty analysis like that is why you got torched in the election, @Rational Poster

 

[HomerThompson]

It doesn't matter because when the DNC runs Dwayne Johnson in 2020 everyone will smell what the Rock is cooking.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Johnson 2020 - "Making America Lay the Smack Down Again!"

 

[Rational Poster]

I like it. I'm not worried about electing our own Trump, @Jack V Savage. The average IQ on the left is a solid 20 points higher than it is on the right. Taking the primary process further away from the party bosses is a good thing.

Also, acting like this wouldn't have helped Bernie is silly. Shitty analysis like that is why you got torched in the election, @Rational Poster

If there were 60% less delegates, that means they only would have been splitting 284-285 superdelegates.

Hillary had 2205 to 1846.

If Bernie somehow convinced every superdelegate to vote out of line of the party, he still lost by 74 delegates.

 

[HomerThompson]

If there were 60% less delegates, that means they only would have been splitting 284-285 superdelegates.

Hillary had 2205 to 1846.

If Bernie somehow convinced every superdelegate to vote out of line of the party, he still lost by 74 delegates.

Not less total delegates, less super delegates. They would apportion the delegates to the primary vote. So, more delegates up for grabs in the voting and caucusing. Also, she wouldn't have been presented as having this big lead the whole time, because she wouldn't have had a built in advantage. That's huge psychologically to voters.

I think Bernie would have pulled it off, and beat Trump by 3-5 points in a comfortable General Election win.

 

[Rational Poster]

Not less total delegates, less super delegates. They would apportion the delegates to the primary vote. So, more delegates up for grabs in the voting and caucusing. Also, she wouldn't have been presented as having this big lead the whole time, because she wouldn't have had a built in advantage. That's huge psychologically to voters.

I think Bernie would have pulled it off, and beat Trump by 3-5 points in a comfortable General Election win.

I understand that. 60% less superdelegates would mean there would have been at most 285 superdelegates instead of 712.

Hillary had 2205 delegates before superdelegates are considered, Bernie had 1846.

1846 + 285 = 2131 < 2205

Hillary's lead over Bernie was bigger than Obama's lead over Hillary, and Hillary dropped out of the race a month before Bernie.

 

[Trotsky]

Strongly disagree that it's a move in the right direction. Democrats should look at what happened to Republicans and realize that their advantage is not superior voters but superior institutions and earned trust in those institutions.

This is a weird post.

What has happened that could possibly lead Democrats to conclude that they don't have superior voters? They quantifiably do. That is the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, not any sort of institutional competence. Democratic voters would never elect a Trump, Kanye West, etc. That's what separates the constituencies.

The Democratic Party has done nothing to shed their reputation for incompetence: quite the opposite. They failed to read the obvious pulse of the nation and their constituents and ran a bland, shitty campaign that lost to the worst candidate in US history. And the exercising of superdelegates contrary to the popular vote did absolutely nothing to preserve electoral or ideological integrity in the primary, as would be the case if Clinton were running against a blowhard like Trump.

And Democrats' distrust of the DNC is, I believe, greater than Republicans' distrust in the RNC.....and the RNC has functioned at a much, much higher level than the DNC with regards to fundraising, budgeting, and funding down-ballot candidates.

 

[HomerThompson]

I understand that. 60% less superdelegates would mean there would have been at most 285 superdelegates instead of 712.

Hillary had 2205 delegates before superdelegates are considered, Bernie had 1846.

1846 + 285 = 2131 < 2205

Hillary's lead over Bernie was bigger than Obama's lead over Hillary, and Hillary dropped out of the race a month before Bernie.

You clearly don't understand. They're not changing the total number of delegates available. They're just making less of them super delegates. Jesus Christ, man.

 

[Rational Poster]

You clearly don't understand. They're not changing the total number of delegates available. They're just making less of them super delegates. Jesus Christ, man.

So you're just assuming then that those delegates would have all went to states Bernie won, and none to Hillary?

 

[HomerThompson]

So you're just assuming then that those delegates would have all went to states Bernie won, and none to Hillary?

Start over, and make sense. There would be the same total number of delegates, but more would be regular delegates that you win by votes, or by caucus.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I like it. I'm not worried about electing our own Trump, @Jack V Savage. The average IQ on the left is a solid 20 points higher than it is on the right. Taking the primary process further away from the party bosses is a good thing.

Strongly disagree there, too. It only seems that way because right-wingers have been convinced that they can't trust institutions (academia and non-partisan media, for example) that would otherwise keep them connected to reality. I see this as a step toward moving on that direction for the left.

 

[HomerThompson]

Strongly disagree there, too. It only seems that way because right-wingers have been convinced that they can't trust institutions (academia and non-partisan media, for example) that would otherwise keep them connected to reality. I see this as a step toward moving on that direction for the left.

But why? What about lessening the super delegates would lead to that? Right wing and left wing media are vastly different. Why would having more pledged delegates from voting and caucusing lead to worse decision making by left leaning voters all of a sudden?

 

[Jack V Savage]

And Democrats' distrust of the DNC is, I believe, greater than Republicans' distrust in the RNC.....and the RNC has functioned at a much, much higher level than the DNC with regards to fundraising, budgeting, and funding down-ballot candidates.

My response to Homer applies to some of the other stuff. And this is not true (not just because of the outsized role you're attributing to NCs). What happened to Republicans is that the party lost all credibility with their own voters, but those voters didn't switch parties. So the fact that Republican elected officials supported other candidates didn't deter primary voters for selecting a joke candidate. On the left, voters assigned far more credibility to elected leaders, which is how Clinton won in the first place.