It's called the Democratic Party, because....Democratic

[MineralMan]

From the tiniest division of Democratic Party organization, the precinct, to the national convention, the majority rules. The Democratic party selects its party officers through democratic elections at every level. Democrats vote to decide things. It's fundamental to the nature of the organization, as indicated by the very name of the party.

There are still state conventions to be held, but it all leads up to the Democratic Nominating Convention in July. That convention, too, and its committee decisions and everything else, will be decided by the majority. The majority of pledged delegates. The majority of all delegates. The majority of the members of the Rules and Platform committees.

The Democratic Party places enormous emphasis on voting and on majority rule.

The minority always has a voice. It can propose. It can make its case. If its proposals and cases are accepted and voted for by a majority, they are no longer minority issues.

Soon, we will nominate a presidential candidate for the November election. That nomination will be by the vote of the majority of the delegates to the convention. Those delegates, too, were elected by majorities.

Democratic. That's what we do in the Democratic Party. That's why I'm a Democrat.

[JackInGreen]

1. Funny

All I tend to see from the imperators is "get in line, kneel and declare fealty, we dont need your votes so get behind the long declared nominee" but I tend to agree with you in principal.

[MineralMan]

4. Had Bernie Sanders earned the majority of pledged delegates

through the primary events held in the 50 states and a few territories, he would become the nominee. No question about it. He did not do so. Hillary Clinton did. So, Hillary Clinton will become the nominee.

The majority decides. The delegates vote. The people have voted. That's how our party operates. Members of the party and its officers may have their individual preferences, but it is only the votes that matter. From every precinct caucus and primary to the national convention, the votes determined the pledged delegate allocations, proportionally.

The winning primary candidate has almost 400 more pledged delegates than the second-place candidate. The majority is clear. Nothing else matters when it comes to the nomination. The Democratic Party is democratic in intent and execution of its role in politics.

[spud_demon]

32. Don't forget the superdelegates

Had Bernie Sanders earned the majority of pledged delegates through the primary events held in the 50 states and a few territories, he would become the nominee. No question about it.

Having watched as most superdelegates picked their candidate before the first caucuses, I do question that. He would have needed enough of a supermajority to override them.

Politics in this country has become very polarized. Repugs won't accept Democratic proposals at all. And I don't just mean the party. The individual legislators vote as a bloc. It is very rare than one of them joins the opposition, even if their constituents poll differently than the national average. I fear that thinking has rubbed off on the Clinton campaign.

There is little to no chance of enough superdelegates switching to the Sanders side for the nomination vote. But what about party platform? Will the Clinton campaign simply shut out Sanders and his proposals? Will the message be "You lost, go home", or something more inclusive?

[Downwinder]

2. That's what it was called in the days of Tammany Hall.

[immoderate]

3. Highly untrue. Party does not represent the majority.

This is propaganda that even you don't believe.

--imm

[MineralMan]

6. It represents the majority of the membership of the party.

Indeed it does. I'm a member of the party. I participate in party organization activities. I vote as a Democrat in all elections. I am a Democrat.

The Democratic Party is an organization with a self-identified membership. It does represent the majority of the active members of the organization. The only activity required is voting as a Democrat.

[immoderate]

7. The party represents the oligarchy.

The rank and file get short shrift.

--imm

[MineralMan]

9. Are you active in the party on any level of its organization?

If not, then your voice is not heard. My recommendation is to become active.

[immoderate]

10. Thanks, I'm helping Tim Canova. I'm sure that will work out well.

--imm

[MineralMan]

11. I'm sure the Democrats in that district will vote for the candidate

they prefer in the primary. If Tim Canova gets the majority of their votes, he'll be on the ballot. Democracy in action. It sounds like you are not convinced that he can win. The voters will decide.

Good luck. That's not my district or even my state. We have legislators to elect here, too. I'll be working locally.

[geek tragedy]

21. yes, yes, if you're on the losing side of the vote then it's not democratic nt

[immoderate]

28. Study up:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/charles-wheelan/2014/04/22/study-shows-wealthy-americans-and-businesses-control-politics-and-policy

--imm

[AgingAmerican]

5. Bullshit

There is little to no democracy within the corporate Democratic party.

[MineralMan]

8. As an active participant in the Democratic Party at the precinct,

district and state level, I disagree with you. I've seen it in action for many, many years now. Everything is decided by voting. Every participant's vote matters. Those who don't participate by voting at any level of the process don't get their opinion registered.

I'm talking about the Party itself. You may be talking about something else.

I've been a Democrat since I became an adult in 1966 (21 years old then). I've been an active participant. I am a Democrat.

[HumanityExperiment]

12. ...shorter...

'democracy' filtered through establishment layers... rules twisting the extent of influence grassroots can reach at higher levels

[randome]

13. You know what the means. You're being disingenuous.

It's to protect us from our own home-grown Trump-like candidate. And it has nothing to do with Sanders' loss, nor with any other candidate's loss. The super-delegate system has not overturned the will of the voters, has it?

[HumanityExperiment]

15. how are facts considered 'disingenuous?

it was clearly stated 'grassroots' from the DNC chair... what does DEM establishment define as grassroots? Bernie's campaign and the movement he started is considered grassroots, correct?

Can you explain the logic as to why SDs pledge BEFORE a single primary vote is cast? Why is that even allowed? the 'will of the voters' hasn't even been determined yet using your logic from you current post...

[MineralMan]

17. SDs don't "pledge" at all. They choose.

Their choice is their own. They total about 15% of all delegates at the convention. They exist for a reason. If there are only two candidates, one will have a majority of pledged delegates. The super delegates have always followed that majority. Frankly, they have never actually swung a nomination where there was a majority of pledged delegates. That's not their function.

They exist because the party voted to make them exist. By a majority.

This year, once again, they will vote with the majority of pledged delegates. Those were selected by the voters in the various jurisdictions, according the rules in those jurisdictions, and allocated proportionally to the votes.

Democratic.

[HumanityExperiment]

25. incorrect, let's look at the facts

'Their choice is their own'...'They exist for a reason'...'The super delegates have always followed that majority'...

they pledged BEFORE a single primary vote was cast, there was no 'majority' to follow, they exist for this reason:

incorrect: 'They exist because the party voted to make them exist. By a majority'

actual fact surrounding SDs:
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/news-archive/history-of-superdelegates

http://origins.osu.edu/history-news/superdelegates-obstacle-road-democratic-elections

This guy is a superdelegate: Rajiv Fernando

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

not democracy...

[randome]

18. It's a fair point to make about making a public pledge.

The system still has never subverted the will of the voters. It's a bizarre system, to be sure, but politics is never straight-forward, it's a 'coordinated mess'.

The only thing a super-delegate's pledge shows is a snapshot of current trends. Since they are free to change their pledges, it is never the final word until the convention. With Sanders' inability to flip any super-delegates, however, today's snapshot is really the final one.

'Grassroots' campaigns can be both benign and destructive. Do you really think DWS is publicly stating that they will no longer listen to the voters? Even if you think the worst of her -and I can see that point of view- even she isn't that stupid.

[HumanityExperiment]

30. 'DWS is publicly stating that they will no longer listen to the voters'

n/t

[swhisper1]

20. Disagree. When Supers are lobbyists and bankers, democracy is skewed horribly

and media lies and blackouts influence voters unfairly, and all media is Corporate owned so influences everyone. Without media, Trump would be very small indeed, not the nominee

Democracy is under the shoe of special interests.

As far as SDs, to state your choice before anyone declares is exactly like pre-emptive wars, it is not democratic in any way, shape or form.

This primary is a farce from the very beginning. You might as well take every citizen behind the barn and shoot them in the head. This is a coup

[randome]

24. It's been a 'coup' since the 1970s.

A 'farce from the very beginning' because you don't like one aspect of the party? Or is it because Sanders didn't win? The Democratic Party is not perfect but the primary was not a farce.

And other super-delegate 'special interests' include those advocating for minority rights, etc. It's a wide-ranging collection of people who are actively involved in the Democratic Party.

[Chathamization]

23. How would they "protect us from our own home-grown Trump-like candidate" except by overturning the

will of the voters?

[randome]

27. The potential for that situation exists. It has not occurred so far.

I don't particularly think they're necessary, either. We've progressed quite a ways from 1972 when they were introduced. But it would be an error to say they have done anything since their introduction other than to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

We could do away with pledged delegates, too, I can see the argument for that. But it's the system we are using currently. Sanders can push to change it all he wants but I think he should have greater priorities than to 'fix' something that so far isn't broken.

[Chathamization]

40. But the purpose of the system is to overturn the will of the voters if it's "to protect us from our

own home-grown Trump-like candidate." And it's been confirmed multiple times that many would be fine voting for a candidate who got fewer pledged delegates. Heck, they were being included in delegate counts as if they had already voted even before we knew who would have the most pledged delegates.

It is an expressly anti-democratic part of the Democratic party. The trigger hasn't been pulled yet, true, but by that logic ICBMs are safe.

[randome]

41. I don't think there's a need for them any longer. So let's get rid of them.

But a 'what-if' scenario hardly seems like it merits part of a 'revolution'. Best to focus on the big things first then work our way down to the 'what-ifs', imo. Triage.

[Chathamization]

42. The "revolution" rhetoric isn't about the super-delegates, but generally getting people engaged and

working for progressive goals - something that most Democrats seem to agree are laudable goals.

The person above brought up super-delegates as a counter to the OP acting as if the Democratic party is a paragon of democracy. It's true that the degree of influence rank and file Democrats have over the power tends to get downplayed (for instance, DNC committee members don't need to act like the rubber-stamp they do), but at the same time those in power go out of their way to minimize that influence.

[MineralMan]

14. Layers, yes, starting at the precinct level.

Anyone can participate and have a voice. I'm active up to the state level in the actual party organization, as a delegate, but I'm not part of the party establishment, really. I do vote, though for the party's officers in Minnesota at our conventions.

The Democratic Party is a grassroots organization. It's a bottom-up organization. Still, to have a voice requires participation. It is an organization, after all. That's why I've been a participant for over 50 years.

[HumanityExperiment]

16. RULES

please... there are layers of rules upon rules that you conveniently ignore or bypass from mentioning that factor into this process

becoming a 'delegate', what powers those delegates have, what functions and factors... please, the 'democracy' is a farce when you take into account what filters are in place preventing actual true DEMOCRACY from being invoked

If you're honest, post the actual facts and factors, let others who read those facts decide if your point holds water or not

'The Democratic Party is a grassroots organization.' at it's inception that was true... but again, establishment added layers upon layers to insulate itself and it's power base from disruptive forces within it's own membership body

'It is an organization, after all' agreed, first statement that is fully factual you've posted in this reply

[MineralMan]

19. At every level, the rules are voted on by the participants at that level.

At every convention I've ever attended, one of the first orders of business is voting on the rules. At every convention, I've received a copy of those rules. At every convention, I can, as a delegate, move to amend those rules. If the amendment I propose is approved by the majority of delegates, it becomes part of the rules. Most often, the rules, as formulated by the Rules Committee, another elected body at that level, are approved without change, but they can and have been amended by motions from the floor. I know that to be true, because I have proposed amendments and had them pass. They were minor changes, but the process works.

AT EVERY LEVEL.

The problem is, it seems to me, that some people who do not participate want to change the rules. That's not going to happen in any organization. Ever. If you want a voice, show up and participate. Then, your voice will be heard. You may not win, but you'll be heard.

[HumanityExperiment]

31. FACTS

'After the 1968 convention in Chicago highlighted the problems inherent in the Democrats’ tradition of nomination by party bosses, the Dems experimented briefly with making the process more democratic.

It was during that experiment, in 1976, that Washington outsider Jimmy Carter won the nomination against the wishes of many Democratic party leaders. High-ranking Democrats were determined to never again have to sit back and look on helplessly as a candidate outside the control of the established political machinery became their party’s duly elected candidate. So superdelegates were introduced in 1982 and implemented two years later. The Republican party, by the way, has no superdelegates.

Office-holding superdelegates (most of whom are democratically elected to represent their constituents) are not obligated to support the candidate of their constituents’ choice. A 1988 study confirmed that superdelegates are more likely than regular delegates to vote for candidates with Washington experience.'

http://origins.osu.edu/history-news/superdelegates-obstacle-road-democratic-elections


this guy is a super delegate: Rajiv Fernando

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

[swhisper1]

22. thank you

[KPN]

26. Do you have a point?

Cuz I don't see one ... not one that respects my intelligence anyway.

[MineralMan]

29. Hmm...that's for you to decide, I guess.

Thanks for your reply.

[KPN]

34. I've decided.

No point worth stating since all it does is criticize people who question "rules" and prefer to change things.

You keep talking about "participating" is the way to induce the changes we seek. Well, I've done that. I've been a registered Dem for 44 years, voted D up and down the ticket without exception every election, run for public offices, been an elected member of my local school board for 12 years serving as its chair for 4, attended local precinct meetings -- when I can and can stomach them, and worked my career in a public service position. The Democratic principles that I've always supported have been plundered by the Democratic Party during much of that time ... and all you've got to say basically is "rules are rules", "votes mean winners and losers". You may be happy with that, but I cannot respect it in light of what is happening to our middle class the past 30 years (and I don't mean me -- I've done way better financially than I ever imagined and have a very comfortable, satisfying retirement -- it's not about me). Your attitude strikes me as naive or smug or both, and I reject it and will continue to rock and support those who rock the boat until we see real change.

[Sivart]

33. Can we give MineralMan his own forum for starting threads about Clinton beating Sanders please?

And about how it was because more people voted for her.....And how if sanders would have got the most votes he would be the winner.

[MineralMan]

35. Who are "we?" I don't need a forum.

I have one, provided by the admins of this site. I posted in that one.

I don't think "we" actually run this website. I know that I do not.

[Sivart]

36. I was being rhetorical, for the purpose of humor.....not being literal.....

And yes, you did post here, and yes, the admins do run this site.

I think I am going to start calling you Captain Obvious.

I'll wait for you to explain to me why....

[MineralMan]

37. I see. Well, then, LOL...

In fact:

However, there's already a DUer with that screen name.

[kstewart33]

38. MMan's OP is obvious, but the truth bears repeating.

He speaks from 50 years of experience in the Democratic Party which gives his views about the party real credibility.

His point is that the party is ground-up, operating by democratic vote. That truth is obviously difficult for some Bernie supporters to accept. So, it bears repeating.

[Sivart]

39. What sanders supporters?

And thank you, Skipper Obvious, for helping Captain Obvious use every topic as an excuse to belittle Sanders supporters!!!



In case anyone was not tuned in, Democracy is based on the majority vote. Mind blown (but only if you support Sanders)!!!!