No Fooling, The Superdelegate System is Working Exactly the Way It's Meant to

[moonshaz]

Since superdelegates are such a hot topic right now, I went looking for info to help increase my understanding of how and why they exist and how they're supposed to work. I found this to be very helpful.

Dear everyone who does not understand how superdelegates work:I get it, it sucks that superdelegates might vote differently from how people in

Comments

[spiritoftherain]

Which would be a great system of checks and balances if it felt like there was equal representation among the Democratic candidates, or that the system hasn't been rigged to make one candidate appear "inevitable," or that the support of superdelegates could actively overshadow the will of the people in choosing the next democratic candidate. Or, you know, if normal unaffiliated individuals actually trusted the Democratic party to represent the interests they say they're for.

As it is, it's just one more tool being used to quash grassroots political movements, just as DWS mentioned, and pick the representative that the party itself wants to win.

[emofordino]

+1

[mimblexwimble]

Well, the point of a 2-type delegate system like this is to stop someone like a Trump, who can get more of the popular vote than his competitors but can't convince party stalwarts (superdelegates) that he's the best candidate.

Trump ought not to be the example in these kinds of situations. One, because Republicans don't have superdelegates (like the article mentions). Two, because it's unlikely that a Democratic candidate would ever be Trump levels of revolting.

We should be using the Democratic party's reason for having superdelegates when arguing that superdelegates "working exactly as they should be", and that reason is to prevent party leaders and elected officials from having to run against grassroots activists. They work in the interest of the overall party (or sometimes just in their own interest), which isn't always in the interest of the voters. I think that framing is essential to why voters feel the superdelegate system is undemocratic.

[britrawick]

not revolting maybe but the voters kept choosing candidates who were unelectable that's why the DNC decided to have a bit of a say. I see why tbh. If the voter choose a guy who loses in 49 states, i'd also find a way to try and by pass then if they chose such a candidate.

[mimblexwimble]

Yes, in a race against Trump the superdelegates will probably do their best to side with the most electable candidate, and that makes sense for the good of the party and probably the party voters. But it remains an undemocratic process.

[fauxkaren]

Also, it ignores the fact that the GOP is getting what it deserves. They've been racist bigots for YEARS without coming outright and saying it, so this is the base they've cultivated. Why are they surprised that GOP voters are so enamored with a man who is outright racist and bigoted?? This is the monster they created and their chickens are coming home to roost. The GOP has no one to blame but themselves for Trump's success.

[bnmc2005]

Thanks for the article, OP. I've been telling people for a while now that someone like Trump is exactly why this system exists but I didn't have the exact words.

[screamingintune]

I think the delegate system, period, needs to be dropped. Popular vote. That's it. It should not be more difficult than that. If the party votes for a candidate that sucks, well, that's on the voters.

But, as a companion, if we go all popular vote, we need closed primaries. The party chooses the nominee. If people choose to stand outside and not have a voice in a party nomination, that's on them.

[moonshaz]

I agree completely.

[fauxkaren]

Fine, but then we need same day party registration on voting day.

[screamingintune]

I think that's a great idea.