California Democrats call for elimination of caucuses, most super-delegates

[w4rma]

Source: Los Angeles Times

The California Democratic Party on Sunday called for a broad overhaul of how the party nominates its presidential candidates, including the elimination of caucuses and most super-delegates.

The resolution urging the Democratic National Committee to change the nominating rules for the 2020 contest has no official power, but is a symbolic statement from the largest state Democratic party in the nation.

Many of the changes were sought by supporters of Bernie Sanders, but Hillary Clinton backers also endorsed the effort, resulting in the resolution being unanimously approved at the state party’s executive board meeting on Sunday.

“It’s very exciting and healing for our party to be able to make a strong statement that we believe in democracy and that leaders should never trump the will of the voters,” said Christine Pelosi, a California super delegate, daughter of House Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and a Clinton backer who co-authored the resolution.

Co-author Daraka Larimore-Hall, the party secretary and a Sanders backer, added, “There are a lot of people, whether they're Clinton supporters or Sanders’ supporters, who see ... there are broken things in our nominating process.”

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trailguide-california-democrats-call-for-1466362723-htmlstory.html

[underthematrix]

1. I'm a CA voter and I don't support this.

[w4rma]

2. I support democracy. I don't support corporate lobbyists being able to overrule voters.

Many of the remaining 463 convention delegates are establishment insiders who get their status after years of donations and service to the party. Dozens of the 437 delegates in the DNC member category are registered federal and state lobbyists, according to an ABC News analysis.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/reason-dozens-lobbyists-democratic-presidential-delegates/story?id=37289507

And, I don't support giving Congress members the ability to overrule voters, either.

[Thor_MN]

3. The super delegates never have, and likely never will.

[w4rma]

4. Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroo

Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists”
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/un_democratic_party_dnc_chair_says_superdelegates_ensure_elites_dont_have_to_run_against_grassroots_activists/

P.S. Yes, the Superdelegates nearly did, this election and WILL vote against the voter's choice in an upcoming election. They need to go. As long as they exist they are a stain on the name of the Democratic Party.

[Thor_MN]

25. No, they are voting against your choice, which is not the same thing.

You backed the second place finisher. End of story,

[w4rma]

27. They might still vote for my choice, depending on the FBI.

THAT is supposed to be their job, to prevent candidates from getting the nomination who are under FBI indictment, or against whom a scandal that wasn't known by the voters until too late was uncovered.

Officially their job was to vote against people like Clinton (whose unfavorability polling is the highest in history). But, they - like any undemocratic institution that removes power from regular people - are simply a means of totalitarianism.

[Thor_MN]

28. Yup, keep praying for that deus ex machina...

It will ease your delusions that you are in the majority..

[w4rma]

34. Among general election voters, I am in the majority. I support the most popular candidate.

It was always going to be harder to get past all of the anti-democratic roadblocks, put into place by the unpopular, big donor sycophant incumbents in the Democratic Party, than it would be for Bernie to win a general election in a complete landslide.

[Thor_MN]

36. No, you have the delusion that you are in some sort of majority.

Your candidate finished second. End of story.

[w4rma]

37. Hillary is still the most unpopular frontrunner in the history of the Democratic Party.

And you keep using that word "delusion" as if you want to personally insult me, but it just outs your own delusion.

[Thor_MN]

38. Which has nothing to do with the fact that your choice finished second.

But you keep your hopes up for that miracle that somehow puts your second place finisher in front. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

[w4rma]

39. As I said before. My choice would win the general election in a landslide.

The anti-democratic roadblocks set in place over the years by the New Democrats made it so that the Democratic primaries would be the tougher election, for Bernie, than the general election where he trounces Trump by double digits in every poll.

[Thor_MN]

40. Which is nothing more than your opinion. It's unprovable.

Mainly because it isn't going to happen.

[billhicks76]

53. Don't Engage The Disruptive, Anal Types

Let them dig their own graves. They are shortsighted to say the least. They are extremely lucky they will face a candidate even a ham sandwich could defeat. If they blow this the base will come for their heads. Their smug, unlikable attitude that has rubbed off on them inspires little confidence I know...and we have to hold our nose and swallow our own vomit knowing we are associated with such personality types but they would have to be the stupidest people on the planet to lose this election and I don't think they can fail that hard. It wasn't just their incompetence that allowed an old Jewish northeastern democratic socialist senator to come out of nowhere and almost whip their butts but the truth that most people identified and supported Bernies policies. Hopefully their hubris doesn't get the best of them. It's time for the grassroots , the people, or as they like to refer to them- the crazies, to start dominating the state legislatures and house elections. We are just getting started because we are about an idea which lives on much longer than a person, candidate or election cycle.

[lapucelle]

102. All three Sanders-endorsed Democratic primary challengers in Nevada lost on June 14.

But the primary was rigged so that the person with the most votes won.

[billhicks76]

107. I Don't Care What Happened In Nevada Then

Bernie had the most votes of a 2nd place finisher in Democratic history...Like I said the grass roots is only getting started whether the smug like it or not. As far as rigged primaries go why do you keep bringing that up? We all know the shortcomings of that electoral process and could write volumes about it but we are moving forward. You better get to work now winning over the general electorate.

[elljay]

41. Don't you understand their math?

Democrats are 30% of the population, 52% of that 30% supported Hillary, which is 15.6% of the electorate. Thus, the majority of all people in the country also support her. Makes perfect sense.

[w4rma]

43. Hillary Clinton's net-unfavorables vs. Bernie Sanders's net-favorables.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating

[billhicks76]

54. Myopia

The similarities to FOX News fans is palpable.

[w4rma]

56. I've said for a year that I can't tell the difference between a Republican and a Clintonite. (nt)

[Thor_MN]

72. I agree, there are a lot of similarly binary thinkers.

Many Sanders supporters are very similar to conservative thinkers in that they tend to be binary. Everything is 100% right or wrong, incapable of dealing with shades of gray. The entire with us or against us, Bernie or bust attitude. Very much like conservatives.

[billhicks76]

74. Lol...No Bernie Supporters Aren't Conservative.

That previous response was to your black and white end of story comments. Some self-reflection would be good. I must say I agree with none of your comments and even less with the divisive, elitist attitude. That's not "coming together". It's the winner that's supposed to extend the olive branches...you do know that right?

[Thor_MN]

77. Didn't really say that, did I?

I said they were binary thinkers in the mix. The very definition of the Bush "With us or against us" is very similar to "Bernie or Bust". It's a binary world view where only two options exist. No compromise is possible. It's an "I demand that my viewpoints be heard!!! And acted on, exactly as I say!!!"

Another characteristic is dismissal of facts, the only thing that matters is the talking points they keep repeating, as if repetition will make them true... The far ends of a spectrum can circle around and have the same behaviors, although they believe the complete opposite things.

[billhicks76]

81. I Get It But I Suggesting You Were Doing The Same Thing

[Thor_MN]

83. What, saying the progressive fringe is the same as the consrvative fringe?

That's doesn't even make sense, but that's where your mind went.

[billhicks76]

90. Wow

[Thor_MN]

94. I know, right?

But you said it. Not me.

[billhicks76]

97. Keep Trying

[Thor_MN]

100. Trying what?

I made my point, you keep making inane replies, for unknown reasons...

[DisgustipatedinCA]

98. Dont the new rules say something about accusations like this? I believe they do.

[Thor_MN]

101. Yes, they do. Some here want to keep thrashing the primary.

My comment was that the super delegates have never overidden the voters. There are those that think that fact is somehow wrong, or goes against their hopes or something.

[billhicks76]

103. You're The One Doing That

You started the entire thing. You see, the rules also apply to you. Take the blinders off.

[Thor_MN]

104. No. I posted a fact. You took issue with that fact.

The super delegates have never overridden the voters. That is an indisputable fact.

So if you disagree, YOU are the one trying to rehash the primaries.

You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own version of the truth.

[billhicks76]

105. I Never Disagreed With That

Read closely.

[billhicks76]

49. Stupid Argument

Totally illogical.

[Thor_MN]

71. Delusional response.

Right off the deep end.

[billhicks76]

73. Really? That Makes No Sense...Again

Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:24 PM - Edit history (1)

I fear for our chances with an attitude like that. Be happy for "winning". Having no manners, gloating, kicking people when they are down etc will not help. Not supporting the crooked super-delegate process has nothing to do with any specific candidate or who came in second or first. Ignoring the merits of the argument and devolving it into a childish us vs them food fight is ridiculous. I've heard of sore losers but sore winners is not a good look. If you want people to have faith in a 2 party system then you had better support scrapping any overriding of the voting process. If you want to gloat that it's a private party and people need to understand that then you should expect the citizens to find other avenues to elect a president so it seems to me you are actually indirectly encouraging third party challenges. Why shoot yourself in the foot?

[Thor_MN]

76. I pointed out facts. Which you have decided is somehow an an attack.

If the fact that super delegates have never overridden the voters is too much for you to bear, well that's your burden, not mine.

If you think that is a ridiculous argument, then party politics may not be what you want in life.

Have a happy one.

[billhicks76]

80. Thats Irrelevant

They could in the future. And they were included in the media's initial tallies which affect how some people turn out or vote...especially in the later voting. You're hilarious the way you word what you think other people are saying. Putting words in people's mouths is never smart. I hardly need you to tell me what I want in life...wouldn't that be a terrible decision. I'm fine, thank you. Try working on diplomacy if you think you like politics. You can't go far without it.

[Thor_MN]

82. Projection seems to be your strong suit.

[billhicks76]

89. Ok. Whatever You Say. Good Luck

[still_one]

42. No they don't. SD ALWAYS go with whoever wins the most pledged delegates. That is what happen with

Obama and Clinton

[harun]

68. The harm they cause is at the beginning of the Primary's, not the end.

They collude with the Corporate Media to inflate the likelihood of their preferred candidate.

[ReRe]

65. Jeeze...

... When you say it like that, Democratic Superdelegates sound remotely similar to the 2000 election debacle with the right wing Supreme Court.

[rpannier]

62. It isn't so much that

It's that they declare, often very early, their early declarations are included in the conversations instead of something that should wait
If a SD comes out in favor of a candidate on January 1st, the candidate is reported as having that vote

[underthematrix]

5. I wonder how long you're been voting and if you even knew we had superdelegates

We need the superdelegates to protect us from crazies, from ragers and from stupid. I want the system kept in place

[w4rma]

6. You could keep from putting your foot in your mouth if you had just checked my DU membership.

That would give you a *start* on the minimum time that I've been voting.

[TwilightZone]

15. Actually, that would tell one nothing of the sort.

Many DUers live in other countries. Many choose not to vote. Many are likely not of voting age.

Assuming that every DUer has been voting as long as they have been members would be misguided, at best.

[w4rma]

17. Whatever. I am a U.S. voter who has been voting since, at least, 2001. (nt)

[underthematrix]

60. Okay. I understand.

[underthematrix]

44. Well I raise this question to you because I didn't see this sort of ire in 1992

1996 2000 2004 and 2008

[w4rma]

47. 2008: Neck and Neck, Democrats Woo Superdelegates

Some of Mr. Obama’s supporters signaled they might battle hard to keep any advantage Mrs. Clinton maintained in superdelegates — in part a dividend from the long relationship of the Clintons with the Democratic National Committee and elected officials — from overcoming any advantage Mr. Obama might have in pledged delegates from the primaries and caucuses.

“My personal opinion is it would be a mistake and disastrous either way for the superdelegates — insiders, establishment politicians — to come along and overturn the expressed view of those pledged delegates,” Mr. Kerry said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/us/politics/10superdelegates.html?scp=2&sq=superdelegates&st=nyt

[w4rma]

48. 1992: Superdelegates have doubts about Clinton

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/25/503390/-

[Ned_Devine]

9. "We need the superdelegates to protect us from crazies, from ragers and from stupid"

Wow

[w4rma]

12. The pro-superdelegate argument sounds like every argument against democracy that I've ever seen.(nt)

[reACTIONary]

29. A party organization . ..

.... isn't a democracy. A democracy must encompass the nation as a whole, which no party or other subordinate organization does. The national election is the venue for democracy.

[w4rma]

31. I reject your argument that primaries should be undemocratic, authoritarian, coronations. (nt)

[reACTIONary]

85. That's your right, bu ....

.... but you have to admit that if most of your fellow party members want a coronation, it would be undemocratic for a minority to insist otherwise.

[billhicks76]

55. Dumb Argument

Ignores reality. The people don't realize the parties have become corporations. And you're wrong because other parties aren't allowed in the debates. Your view almost encourages overthrowing a corrupt system by any means necessary.

[reACTIONary]

84. I'm not sure i understand your objection...

.... Pretty much by definition, those who belong to one party don't get to have a say in nominating the other partys' candidates. If the party's process by definition excludes most citizens from participating in it, it certainly can't be considered democratic in nature. It's exclusive to the party and thus not democratic. That seems to be the basic reality to me.

I don't see why a group of like minded folks can't decide for themselves what procedures and rules they want to use to decide who they want to support regardless of whether or not they adhere to someone else's standard for "democracy".

And what does being allowed in debates have to do with any of this?

I take it that your comment about "any means necessary" is supposed to insinuate a threat of violence. The essence of democracy is persuasion and respect for your fellow citizens. Resorting to threats of violence is contrary to the fundimental principles of democracy.

[randome]

86. Yeah, this argument leads nowhere, doesn't it?

There are, what, 220 million registered voters or so? By the logic that non-Democrats get to control the Democratic Party, all voters should get to vote in the Green Party and the GOP party and the Communist party, as well.

That's 220 million votes times four so far, and that doesn't even include all the fringe parties.

The argument collapses on itself.

[billhicks76]

91. Close The Primaries. Get Rid Of Super Delegates

[randome]

93. Not a problem here. It seems to be a problem with the Black Caucus and others, though.

I don't think it's a power play, either. To spend more than 5 minutes on this is foolish, imo.

[billhicks76]

96. Sen Clyburn?

Where the heck was he and the Democratic Party when Alvin Greene was mysteriously selected to face Sen Jim DeMint in the US SC 2010 primary? Someone please explain how this discharged, sex offender, broke zombie who couldn't put a sentence together and had no ads or literature and no money secured the US Senate nomination. Seriously. What they hell happened and how can anyone think the voting machines aren't corrupted after that certified ejection loser lost to Vic Rawls.

[John Poet]

108. Perhaps we should only let the superdelegates vote,

and get rid of the 'pledged' delegates elected by the rabble....

Then we'd be 'safer', yes?

[Silver_Witch]

13. Wow just wow...

So you think this country needs protection from the voters or the common man? Who gets to judge who the "crazies, ragers and stupid are"? You or the 1% or YOU?




Shame on you...

[AntiBank]

14. "crazies, from ragers and from stupid" <<< not much faith in the Democratic Party's voters eh?

“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”

― Franklin D. Roosevelt

[jhart3333]

26. +1,000,000

[reACTIONary]

24. +10!

[MrMickeysMom]

30. Actually, we need ourselves to protect us from the crazy people...

You have it the other way around, where one vote one person is replaced with one vote ten persons, and they don't have to represent the people.

Is it crazy to have so much money in politics that corporate lobbyist influence U.S. and State Representatives along with all the Senate in what should be one arm of three in government?

We need the super delegates to balance this? I wonder how long YOU have been voting.

[billhicks76]

50. Let Them Eat Cake Huh?

Maybe you should try out the Republican Party.

[ReRe]

66. Right...

... you want the status quo to stay. You like the "establishment" just the way it is.

[AntiBank]

7. watching many on here support such an elitist, undemocratic institution as super delegates

simply because it pushes their elitist-backed, corporatist-backed, bankster-backed, neocon-backed ( Robert Kagan: Republican, Neocon, PNAC co-founder endorses Clinton ) candidate over the top this go-round is sickening.

[w4rma]

8. Yup. Luckily, the vast majority of Americans can't stand the Superdelegate system.

So the superdelegate defenders just make themselves look bad and corrupt to everyone else.

[WhiteTara]

22. Couldn't stand it since at least 2016

The system has been around for almost 30 years. I'll also add that Sanders guy Tad Devine helped put it in place.

[Silver_Witch]

11. I am a CA voter, Democrat and I SUPPORT this!!!

Completely and totally and so do most Democrats in this State!

[scscholar]

45. This. What right does CA have to tell us...

how to do our business?

[rpannier]

61. I've opposed them since the beginning and haven't changed

But, it's cool that you think otherwise

[OnionPatch]

69. Well I'm a California voter and I do!

We should stop calling ourselves "Democrats" if the party elites have such disproportionate power over the rank and file voters.

[Silver_Witch]

10. Finally some good news!!

Real Democrats did this!!!

[TwilightZone]

16. Sure, get rid of SDs. It's worked out so well for the GOP.

They're wishing they had kept SDs right about now. Trump is a perfect example of why we have them.

[w4rma]

18. Trump won by too much for their "unbound" delegates to overrule their voters.

Even if the "unbound" delegates weren't reformed into bound delegates, they couldn't have overruled the voters.

What the GOP should NOT have done is propagandize their voters into believing stupid things.

[AntiBank]

20. great let's not do democratic things based off the fucking Rethugs sorry choices!!!

There's a compelling reason for undemocracy!!!!

[MrMickeysMom]

32. The lack of SD's are supposed to have caused Drumpf?

I don't think so... It was the endless supply in politics controlled by the likes of the Koch Bros and every other corporate donor. Plenty of issues to keep in place from the gun lobby, who are the biggest donors to the GOP.

You can't blame SD's when it was the unfettered funding and doing the corporation's will... not the peoples.

Nobody sees the 500 pound gorilla in the room. It's the people. We are supposed to be represented and defended, not ignored and disenfranchised. Get it right.

[Eric J in MN]

35. Trump won because plurality of Republican voters

...chose a bigot.

Democratic voters wouldn't.

[elljay]

46. The majority of Republicans voted for Trump

So he is the presumptive nominee. This is the way democracy works. The SD system was put in place to supposedly ensure that the strongest Democratic candidate is selected. That clearly failed this year when the majority of Democratic voters voted for the weaker of the candidates in the national election and the SDs apparently will be confirming that choice. It is clearly not only an antidemocratic system, it obviously doesn't fulfill its intended purpose.

[AntiBank]

19. Clinton backers also endorsed the effort, resulting in the resolution being unanimously approved

in 5,4,3,2,.........................

[w4rma]

21. Thank goodness. Getting rid of the superdelegate system is very popular and strongly supported. (nt)

[AntiBank]

23. just not on this board, unfortunately

Once power is given to elites, it is a motherfucker to pull back.


We shall see what becomes of this. I have little hope as look at how HARD it is going to be to get rid of that cretin, DWS ffs.

[appalachiablue]

51. Amen. ~ America's last King, George III.

[MrMickeysMom]

33. Right ON, Anti...

Preach.

[billhicks76]

58. Frantz Nailed It

It's not just discomfort but intellectual laziness. No one wants to have to reorganize their entire belief systems because the platforms they based them on turn out to be false.

[avaistheone1]

52. ALL not some of the super delegates have got to go.

They undermine the integrity of our election system and of our democracy.

[WolverineDG]

57. We got a similar resolution passed

on the floor of the convention in Texas. And yet, a Hillary supporter condescendingly tells me that the establishment "let" us win & that the resolution was "meaningless" & "worthless."



Guess the movement to get rid of superdelegates isn't "meaningless" or "worthless" if California does the same.

[AntiBank]

59. why do so many have to be such nasty people? it makes no sense

Btw, do you really think Texas is in play for the GE?

[WolverineDG]

87. With Hillary at the top of the ticket?

Nope. Not unless the Republicans implode & their vote splits 2 or 3 ways (or they don't even show up to the polls at all)

With Bernie? We had a chance.

[randome]

79. It IS meaningless and worthless if the 'revolution' was for income equality, climate change, etc.

It is utterly and completely devoid of any substance. It will change nothing about the issues that matter.

[WolverineDG]

88. So we should never, ever do anything to change

and bring our country closer to true economic & social justice?

Can't believe I'm hearing that kind of stuff here.

[randome]

92. How do you draw a line from superdelegates to economic justice?

They're not on the same page, they're not even in the same book. It's like trying to upgrade a car by changing the car stereo.

[Festivito]

63. Meh. Eliminate parties, institute instant runoff voting.

This is just political posturing for a current political battle.

[Major Hogwash]

64. Does anyone in California even know if their vote is counted?

How do you know, if you aren't present when they count the votes?
At a caucus, they count the hands of the people present at a precinct's caucus, and then turn in those tallies to the main office.
Volunteers verify the counts in each precinct, so the totals sent in to the main office are officially accurate.

Using electronic voting machines, dedicated purpose computers, that can be altered with a cheap smart phone doesn't sound like progress to me.
Unless you think the other candidate doesn't own a smart phone, and then I can understand why displaying that level of ignorance seems like just using common sense.
However, you don't even get a receipt when you vote electronically like you would if you used an ATM.

Nevertheless, just getting a receipt from your act of voting isn't going to guarantee your vote is counted, either.

So, go back to using electronic voting machines if you want to, California, because as everyone knows, nothing can go wrong when you use a computer, nothing can go wrong when you use a computer, nothing can go wrong when you use a computer.

This message brought to you by Diebold, the company that helped Dubya Bush steal the 2004 election!!

[Igel]

67. The call for eliminating automatic delegates is fine.

But really, asking the national party to eliminate caucuses?

Not California's call, telling the party to dispose of what party members in other states can or cannot do. Doesn't sound very democratic, that.

[LanternWaste]

70. As the conversation rarely comes up outside of primary season

As the conversation rarely comes up outside of primary season, I'm left to conclude its self-serving and insincere nature.

[Triana]

75. One of the all too few sane states in the country. n/t

[randome]

78. Of all the things needing attention, THIS is where some draw the line?

Why this urgent need to fix something that isn't broken? Sure, a hypothetical case might turn up in the far future where this would be an issue but superdelegates have never overturned the voters.

This isn't worth 5 minutes of discussion when equal rights, foreign policy, infrastructure and climate change are on the table.

I can hardly believe the attention paid to this. Even if you get superdelegates to be eliminated, it will be an empty win that changes absolutely nothing.

Take the win if that's what you want, but if this is the state of the 'revolution', no wonder it hasn't gone anywhere.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

99. Democrats in the largest state in the Union seem to disagree with you.

[TheFarseer]

95. "Most superdelegates"

I could live with just senators can be supers or something like that but not people that just have connections and have not been elected to a damn thing. The supers didn't overturn the primary result, but they could have if things played out slightly different and I don't think anyone wanted to see that.