Super delegates should not be counted at all.

[kentuck]

They should be removed from the Democratic Party election process altogether, in my opinion.

The candidate that wins the majority of pledged delegates should be the nominee. That is the fairest and most open way to get a nominee for the Party.

At the present time, Hillary has the most "pledged" delegates but Bernie has an outside shot of over-taking her. If she ends up with the most pledged delegates, then she should be the nominee.

Super delegates should not be part of the equation, in my opinion.

[bigwillq]

1. I agree.

I would be ok with keeping Pledged delegates, but POP VOTE should be th deciding factor, imo.

The person with the POP VOTE lead should be the nominee. This year, it is Hillary Clinton, so she should be the nominee.

[kentuck]

5. Popular vote can be misleading...

If some states have primaries and other states have caucuses, then that would affect the popular vote totals. The candidate that wins one or two big primaries may jump to a big lead in the popular vote, even though the candidate that won several caucuses may have had a much larger popular vote total if those states had primaries.

They need to do away with the caucus process if they want a truer reflection of the popular vote.

[bigwillq]

7. I think caucuses should be eliminated (nt)

[Lord Magus]

21. The thing is, the same candidate wouldn't necessarily win if caucuses were switched to primaries.

But yes caucuses should be eliminated. Primaries are much fairer.

[annavictorious]

51. Nebraska and Washington

had both caucuses and primaries.

Sanders won the caucuses, but Clinton won the primaries in which tens of thousands of more people participated.

[Stuckinthebush]

2. Fine

Majority rules.

[TeacherB87]

26. They don't understand math...

Not sure they'll be as magnanimous as this poster. lol

[justiceischeap]

3. Just curious if you felt the same way in 2008?

If you think SD's are a huge issue, then begin a movement within the Party to have the rules changed.

As it stands now, and has since 1969, that's the way it's been done and here's why:

After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, at which pro-Vietnam war liberal Hubert Humphrey was nominated for the presidency despite not running in a single primary election, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process to correct what was seen as "illusory" control of the nomination process by primary voters.[7] A commission headed by South Dakota Senator George McGovern and Minnesota Representative Donald M. Fraser met in 1969 and 1970 to make the composition of the Democratic Party's nominating convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast in primary elections.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

[beachbum bob]

4. hillary will have the majority

of pledged delegates, votes and super delegates

a trifecta....benrie can go back to vermont and rest

[gollygee]

6. You can't change the rules midstream

However I would totally change them for the future. Everyone has a primary with the same rules, and everyone votes the same day, and the win is by popular vote. And yeah no superdelegates.

[Lizzie Poppet]

11. Agreed.

Rules have to stay the same across the entire primary cycle. Then drop that horrid, anti-democratic horseshit post haste.

[Recursion]

8. Halfway agree. Limit it to the party chair and vice-chair in each state/territory

Also make them agree not to publicly endorse any candidate during the primary season.

I think in a close (or three-way) race, the party infrastructure having some say is in principle a good thing. I really, really dislike how the Clinton campaign tried to use them as a steamroller from the beginning.

[stillwaiting]

9. HRC may have more pledged delegates because of the existence of superdelegates.

The media threw an extra 450 delegates in to the HRC column from the beginning of this primary, and they put forth the narrative that HRC was crushing Bernie and, in effect already won from very, very early in this race.

They could not do that without superdelegates.

They must be eliminated.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. Precisely. The pre-committed SDs were used to generate momentum.

And that's bullshit.

[Recursion]

14. Yes. And it narrowed down our field way too much

Lots of names like Schweitzer or Tester or Beshears or Gregoire might have put their hat in the ring had there not been the steamroller, and I think the race would have been a lot better for that. (For that matter I only "found" O'Malley after Schweitzer endorsed him when he realized it wasn't a cycle he could win.)

[PeaceNikki]

19. I would have thought that would have had the opposite effect.

Why wouldn't it have empowered the Sanders voters to work harder to GOTV?

Sanders and his supporters have been harping on and about them the entire race.

[upaloopa]

28. The media through 450 delegates to Hillary?

Now the media runs the primary?

[libdem4life]

34. The media Does Not run the Primary? HRC folks would obviously

agree with that.

The rest of us, not so much. Almost Total Blackout on MSM television and major internet news sites. Google News, which I go to almost dayly...barely a mention of Sanders...even today, he was the very last story in a lengthy list of news reports. Dead last.

But then, anyone who doesn't know that isn't paying attention even here on DU. Even the upper Head of the Democratic Party had to tell Jake Tapper, to his privileged media chagrin, that the SDs were absolutely NOT to be included.

[upaloopa]

39. Sanders was on so much I wore my mute button out!

The denial of reality by Sanders folks is mind blowing!

[libdem4life]

40. Please save your mind. We're talking about the first 6 months or so,

when he was just a spur under HRCs saddle. No one can, with any integrity, deny that.

Now they are busy telling us how he needs to get out, and that he's going to elect Trump by default, has no plan for his "unicorns and pones", raise taxes not mentioning the put-back of funds, and OMGOMGOMG college education for all. The Oligarchy is hyperventilating ad nauseum. (California had essentially free college before Reagan...I know, I participated)

Primaries are not Beauty Pageants. They are times to reflect on candidate's positions, listen to candidates explain and explore, not declare winners then bash the "loser". I know that's a lot to ask, and virtually impossible especially in the day of ...

"Tell a lie and it goes around the world before the truth has time to get its pants on."

[Skink]

10. HRC's purchase of the SD'S before the race shut out almost all competition

[Recursion]

13. This O'Malley fan strongly agrees

I'm not against the idea of a (small) number of unpledged party delegates. I'd limit it to the chair and maybe vice chair of each state party. But I'd especially make it clear that they are not to endorse before the convention. (If nothing else this would buy at least "official" neutrality from each state chair.)

[geek tragedy]

16. There's an uncomfortable gray zone between endorsing

and committing to vote in the convention

[Recursion]

17. I'd like that to be frowned upon

The supers' raison d'etre (at least to me) is to put a thumb on the scale in a 3-candidate plurality situation. They shouldn't be used as a steamroller.

[geek tragedy]

18. At the same time, endorsements are part of the game

and there is that free speech thing. How 'neutral' would they have to be?

Such ambiguity is reason to overhaul or scrap the idea.

[Recursion]

20. Agreed, and the ability to get them is an important signal

But I think there are better ways to show that.

[Lord Magus]

22. That's BS.

There was no "purchase" and superdelegate endorsements don't shut anything out.

[Skink]

33. She starts with +400 and Biden doesn't run

Just one example

[Lord Magus]

44. That's also BS.

Biden deciding not to run had nothing to do with supers and everything to do with polling.

[Skink]

53. Numerous other people would have gotten in if she didn't start at +400

A challenge from her right could have altered the race

[upaloopa]

30. I guess she used her speach money to buy them

[libdem4life]

36. Didn't have to. DWS did the heavy lifting. It's Winning that brings

in the money.

[Agony]

23. The National Party convention should be primarily used to agree on a Democratic Party platform

as developed by the state and local parties.

The nominee as chosen by primary voters can give an awe inspiring acceptance speech, of course.

It is a good bet that if Sanders gets, has or had even a small plurality of the pledged delegates that the PLEO's would not "switch" their "vote" to him. The PLEO's are not delegates, they are freelancing agenda agents without accountability to ordinary Democratic Party members. The exception is PLEO's who are elected officials, at least they were elected at some point in time…

Get rid of PLEO's and go with Democratic Party popular vote. This primary has been poisoned from the get go by "unpledged" PLEO's.

The national and state Party should dramatically expand a system of grants so that ordinary working Democrats can afford to participate in the national Party process (develop the Platform). Ordinary people are too busy working 3 jobs and struggling to take care of their kids to be able to afford to participate in the current charade.

The Democratic Party should stop pretending to represent working people/be a big tent and act like "we" matter.

[Lord Magus]

24. Sure, don't count superdelegates.

There's never been a primary where that would've made a difference, but the fact that it ever could happen is reason enough to get rid of them.

(Similarly I would favor getting rid of the electoral college even if we hadn't already experienced a popular vote loser winning the presidency.)

[demwing]

25. If the SDs support the majority candidate, they're unnecessary

If they don't support the majority candidate, they're dangerously undemocratic.

[baldguy]

35. The SDs are supporting the majority candidate now.

The other candidate doesn't want them to. Who is being dangerously undemocratic?

[libdem4life]

38. The current system. Has Nada to do with current reality. Committed

before there was even 1 other candidate. That's not democratic...unless they commit to reflect percentage-wise the views of the voters in their states. That is not their purpose. Their purpose is to keep the Nomination "Peasant-free" for the Establishment.

[baldguy]

41. The current system *IS* the current reality. Sanders knew the rules going in.

Whining about non-existent fraud, or "The Establishment" consisting of nothing but people who got there before your candidate and who for decades actually did the work that drew him to the party is ingenuousness at best. At worst ..... it's something else.

[libdem4life]

43. Really? And you can skip the talking point memes. They are old and moldy

You know nothing about the fraud..either way. I doubt you've been consulted. And exactly how much "decades of Party work" did Obama do? Oh that's right. Half a Senate term.

Being a perennial candidate for 25 years isn't a shoe in either. It does build a long list of loved ones, ones who owe, and ones to hate and plenty of time to take all kinds of positions on the same subject. Now if that is the result of your preferred CV of a presidential candidate, you'd have to go with HRC. Oh, and rigging up servers to evade god knows what...see the list above...didn't see that on your list.

She doesn't pass the political smell test for me and for many. Time will tell...there are a few shoes yet to drop.

[baldguy]

45. Your refusal to accept the truth of basic facts, and your poor choices are not my problem.

If you refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee, then you're a Trumpist.

[libdem4life]

46. Typical response...devoid of facts but strong on additional memes,

putdowns and, yes, tunnel vision. Nothing I said "refuses" anything nor affects my "poor choices". Save that for your candidate. There's your Trump problem and has been for months. I said nothing of what you say...speaking of truth. And I don't call people names.

But, it's what many of us have come to understand.

[baldguy]

48. Your statments certainly don't match your screen name.

Clinton won. Bernie lost, grow up & get over it.

[Octafish]

27. It's like having pretend elections.

The people vote and someone else decides who won.

[upaloopa]

32. A minority of voters selected Hillary and the supers will too

[Renew Deal]

29. A woman wins so it's time to change the rules

No more counting supers. No more recognizing victors.

[baldguy]

42. But sexism has nothing to do with it.

[truebrit71]

49. Yeah, that's it. Nothing to do with her policy positions or war-mongering record, right?

[Renew Deal]

50. Not at this point

That has been settled by the voters.

[randome]

31. So what you're saying is that Sanders is still losing. Okay, then.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. For 2020 and later, absolutely agree.

Nevertheless, this is the system we have for 2016.

If Sanders can flip 'em, the nomination is his. Further, if the situation is such that the SD's are inspired to vote for Sanders, it argues for the wisdom of the SD's in the first place.

[Mz Pip]

47. Fine

Maybe changes can be made for the next election. I don't think it's a good idea to rewrite the rules at the end of the game.

[Agnosticsherbet]

52. I agree, and Sanders will still loose. They are not going to coronate a candidate that lost.

the primary election.

Oh, and while we are at it, let's abolish caucuses. A form of election created to disenfranchise the majority of a state's voters is undemocratic and barbaric.