Pelosi pans superdelegate system

[NWCorona]

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday amplified her criticism of the Democrats' presidential primary system, saying the states' pledged delegates — and not the superdelegates — should decide the winner.

"I'm not a believer in the sway of superdelegates deciding who is going to be the nominee," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "I think we have a democratic process where people vote on both sides of the aisle … and that that should determine who the nominee is.

Pelosi made waves by making similar comments amid the 2008 primary contest between then-Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). The move prompted sharp criticism from Clinton supporters because Obama, at the time, enjoyed a lead among pledged delegates and her remarks were viewed as a tacit endorsement of him. "

I commend Pelosi for her consistency as no one should get to vote twice.


http://thehill.com/homenews/house/271651-pelosi-pans-superdelegate-system

[Betty Karlson]

1. Pelosi is right.

Count on Debbie to make a move against Nancy any time... The coronation will not be impeded.

[roguevalley]

25. anyone who believes its one vote for the many and two for the

overstuffed and establishment few isn't a dem. Or an American for that matter.

[Xipe Totec]

2. If they use superdelegates to win the primary they better have superdelegates to win the GE. nt

[NWCorona]

3. That's a valid point

[stillwaiting]

7. They are currently using superdelegates to manipulate the public to get the result they want.

They are manufacturing consent through a corrupt process, and this is enabled by a corrupted corporate Media.

The very existence of the superdelegates has made our Primary much, much more undemocratic than it should be.

Shame on everyone involved with it.

[NurseJackie]

4. Too late now. These are the rules that everyone agreed to. But ...

... I wonder if it's possible to change them for future primaries.

[jeff47]

6. No! The rules handed down from upon high in 1982 are forever binding!!!!

To be less sarcastic, they can be changed any time the party wants to organize a vote to change them.

Since superdelegate rules help the people who would have to organize that vote, don't hold your breath.

[Bubzer]

19. OR, they can just decide to arbitrarily change them...

Like when they opened up the limit on financing to the candidates from corporations and PACs

[NewJeffCT]

28. They've made changes to the system over the years

The nominee was picked by all insiders 1968 and prior (i.e., the equivalent of superdelegates) - following the controversial 68 convention, the elected delegates were given a big say in the matter. However, that gave Democrats George McGovern in 72, Jimmy Carter in 1976 (who barely beat Gerald Ford coming off of Watergate) and then Carter's big loss to Reagan in 1980.

Following that loss, the system was modified to increase the sway of super delegates (I think from around 10% of the vote to 15%, but I could be wrong). That system gave us Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis - two more big losses.

Following those losses, the system was tweaked again and super delegate influence increased from around 15% to the current number of , which is weighted around 20%. The current system gave us Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore once, John Kerry and then two more for Barack Obama. So, in the eyes of TPTB in the Democratic Party, that was 5 wins (counting Gore as a win) and 1 close loss with Kerry under the current system. The previous two systems were one close win against a flawed candidate and four big losses.

[Plucketeer]

27. Who "everyone"???

No one asked me - pr anyone that I know. It's a frikin' RUSE. A DNC-contrived "in your face" to we peons. Democracy - right!

[Kittycat]

5. This >>> "no one should get to vote twice."

Agreed. And thank you Pelosi for showing courage and consistency to speak up on this issue.

[mrdmk]

30. It is worse than someone gets to vote twice, a lot worse

Did some simple math here: Voters/Delegates = Number of Voters for One Delegate





source for the numbers: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/01/upshot/super-tuesday-live-democrat-delegate-estimates.html

[yourout]

8. The whole delegates thing needs to go away.. it should be popular vote.

Period.

[-none]

9. Pencil and paper ballot only.

No electronic voting machines. There is absolutely no reason for having the final tally, 3 hours after the polls close, to be announced on the opening of the 10 O'clock news. If it takes a few days, so be it. I want accuracy over speed.
This goes for both the primary and the general elections.

[Bubzer]

20. Agreed

[SheenaR]

10. Even simpler

So caucuses could remain if a state wanted to, why can't we go to a very simple. Most states won wins? Why is one state's vote more important? One of the great electoral college flaws and flaws of our system

[yourout]

11. That would put to much power in one small state.

Popular vote....period.

[karynnj]

21. Ummmm Vermont is absolutely wonderful, and in my opinion, the best state in the country -

but in no way does it deserve as much weight as California!

Personally, I think the first several waves of states should be the purple states. These are the states that really determine who wins. In all but a landslide election, we win the blue states and lose the red states.

As to the way the GE should be done, I like John Anderson's and Birch Bayh's proposal that would result in the popular vote nationwide being used. To avoid needing a constitutional amendment, they propose that states pass legislation that says they will cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote, and that would kick in only after enough states pass it to give them the 50% plus 1 electors. This prevents the state's full representation going to someone who might have won the state by 50.001 %.

Doing that would change the entire game - big cities would matter - even if they are in safely red or blue states.

[JaneyVee]

12. Didnt Tad Devine set up the superdel system in the 80s?

Or something to that effect?

[NWCorona]

14. I had to look that up and you appear to be correct.

I'm not sure what Bernie's take is on this issue. I still agree with Pelosi on this.

[JaneyVee]

15. I do too. Whoever gets popular vote should get nom.

I guess maybe in event of a tie they may be useful but a tie would be insanely rare.

Meanwhile, Hillary won the popular vote in 08 so

[NWCorona]

17. True!

I'm just glad we can agree on something

[EndElectoral]

13. Nancy and I agree. The superdelegate thing is nonsense, no matter who you're for now or the future

Even the GOP uses it against us. How can you call the party democratic when the whole idea of super delegates, creates a privileged group? Got to go. Well stated Nancy.

[Justice]

16. Both parties have these one off rules of one kind or another.

I am not saying I agree with all of them, but they are there. Hard to change mid-stream.

[Dont call me Shirley]

18. Wow Nancy! Sticking up for the real voters!

[Wilms]

29. Caught my attention!

[avaistheone1]

22. The super delegate system super sucks and it undermines our democracy.

The super delegates should be chucked for good.

I agree with Pelosi on this one.

[jalan48]

23. The Republican's will be doing it soon I would imagine.

No messy surprises allowed.

[Skinner]

26. I was going to post the same thing.

LOL

[morningfog]

32. The repubs will be amending their rules in the weeks before the convention.

There is a special rule committed of 112 member (or thereabouts) which will be selected soon. They will fight and change the rules of the convention fight just weeks prior to it.

[mrdmk]

35. No Kidding, But and only But, if Trump (fill in the blank please)

The country as a whole will be in for colonoscopy.

[BernieforPres2016]

24. Good for Nancy Pelosi

[Mufaddal]

31. Interesting analysis of this over at Inquisitr

http://www.inquisitr.com/2852213/nancy-pelosi-just-dropped-presidential-campaign-bombshell/

Now, you may be saying [regarding the quote about super delegates], “Hey, that’s not that big of a deal,” but stop for a moment and think about this. No matter how you feel about Pelosi, good or bad, there is no denying that she is one of the best political players on the planet. And she just made a statement that is not Clinton-friendly. That’s a very dangerous thing to do. Just ask Nina Turner or Tulsi Gabbard.

Now Pelosi — who insists she hasn’t officially endorsed anyone yet — has suddenly gone off the reservation in the Clinton camp and is advocating for changes in the Democratic primary system that would hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances of getting the nomination.

[morningfog]

33. I think she is just right and consistent. And Hillary will likely

win the majority of pledged delegates anyway.

[NWCorona]

34. Thanks for the link

I was looking for something good to read before I crash out.