A modest proposal for reforming the superdelegate system.

[Chichiri]

I think superdelegates are a good idea; if the Republicans had superdelegates as we do, they probably wouldn't have a Trump problem! But since so many Bernie supporters think the system should be done away with or reformed, and since they occasionally have good points, here's what I propose.

All superdelegates must, prior to the Iowa caucuses, make one of the following commitments.

1. To vote for whomever receives the most pledged delegates nationwide.

2. To vote for whomever wins the popular vote nationwide. (We would need a standardized metric for this.)

3. If applicable, to vote for whomever wins the popular vote in the state whose party confers their superdelegate status.

4. If applicable, to vote for whomever wins the popular vote in the region, such as congressional district or county, which their office represents.

These commitments will be a matter of public record, and distributed to the media before Iowa. Thus we will be able to calculate who has won superdelegates from each state by looking at the primary results from the state, and not before.

There would be two caveats, however. First, regardless of their commitments, superdelegates are free to endorse and campaign for whomever they wish. Second, these commitments are NOT BINDING; they can break the commitment and vote for someone else at the convention. Since the commitments are public, however, the breaking would be equally public, and there would presumably be SEVERE repercussions for that superdelegate unless there are excellent reasons for their action. Like their committed candidate shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Street.

So for example, if I was a superdelegate congressman who represented Minnesota CD 2, and I committed to vote for whomever won the popular vote in my district, I would be committed to voting for Bernie at the convention, even though I am a Hillary supporter. And at the convention, I would indeed vote for Bernie -- unless he was just convicted of tax fraud or something, in which case I would probably vote for Hillary.

What do you think?

[NurseJackie]

1. I'd start with closed primaries. Elimination of caucuses. And ...

... one national primary day, or four regional primaries.

EDIT: Isn't one of Sanders' campaign heads largely responsible for the Superdelegate system that we now have in place?

[apnu]

4. Four regions sounds better than a national Primary day.

Allow the candidates to focus their efforts to a more localized area. It will cost less, which means less opportunities for corruption through fundraising.

Beyond that, I don't have a problem with closed primaries and doing away with the caucus system. Political parties and whom they nominate should be a private affair within the party, whatever the party. Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Independent... whatever. It should be the party's responsibility to nominate whomever they think is best for the job and then its for the nation to choose from that list.

[Else You Are Mad]

2. I say get rid of them...

And let the will of the voters and let the will of the state parties deem fit to, per the voting results, allocate those delegates alone decide.

[apnu]

5. The will of the voters already has a special day in November every four years. (nt)

[firebrand80]

3. I could live with that

It would take the anti-democratic public perception away, while still giving them the power to protect the party if something strange were to happen.

[TheDormouse]

6. Get rid of superdelegates! ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE!

The only reason for having superdelegates is to be able to override a non-establishment candidate that has been chosen by votes cast in primaries/caucuses.

That is completely at odds with the fundamental principles of democracy.