At Maine convention, Democrats to vote on eliminating superdelegates
Source: Bangor Daily News
Maine Democrats will vote on a rule change at this weekends state convention that could reshape future presidential contests.
The proposed change could also prompt a floor fight between supporters of presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
Portland state Rep. Diane Russell, who is introducing the rule, is hopeful that the fight wont happen, but that so-called superdelegates will be eliminated in 2020.
We have a system of government where you have one person, one vote, by and large, Russell says. The primary system is not when that happens. And I think that we need to start moving toward a system thats more fair, thats more democratic and more reflective of the popular vote.
<more>
Read more: http://bangordailynews.com/2016/05/04/politics/at-maine-convention-democrats-to-vote-on-eliminating-superdelegates/
As Maine Goes...etc.
allan01
(1,950 posts)free television and radio air time along with print. the media open to all sides equaly not just one sided and get rid of citezens united. money isnt free speach its a tool.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)By the way pugs don't use super delegates
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The only way Trump will win is if we nominate an equally extreme fringe candidate - which didn't happen, of course!
Gore1FL
(21,185 posts)The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)primary where he thinks it is fairer.
If Sanders had been a member of the party of his whole adult life, like Hillary Clinton, he'd be doing a lot better with the super-delegates, who are all elected public or party officials. This claim that they don't represent anyone but themselves is bullshit. They represent democratic voters and are elected by them.
BunkieBandit
(82 posts)Did Hillary? Yes.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)Before that he was a socialist of a particular kind. He's a pleasant enough man, but his politics are odd.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)for their misdeeds, equal pay for women, $15 minimum wage, auditing the Fed, no protracted wars on lies, immigration reform, ending for profit prisons, stopping climate change, ending fracking. . .yeah, really odd.
The Democrats have really swung to the right if these positions are "odd." Glad I re-registered as an independent and went principles over party.
Wait, will that get me purged from DU?
Nitram
(22,985 posts)You're talking about 50 years ago. Half a century. When she was a junior in college. I don't know about you, but most kids grow up strongly influenced by their parents. While they are away at college, they start to become real individuals based on exposure to ideas from different people from different backgrounds. Clinton became a Democrat because she supported civil rights and was against the Vietnam war. She worked for Eugene McCarthy's campaign that same year. Following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students to recruit more black students and faculty.
I think it's time Bernie supporters stopped trotting out this tired and irrelevant talking point, don't you?
lancer78
(1,495 posts)discover that at least 67 of our super delegates are lobbyists?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)establishment not the voters. Try reading your own post and see what you think.
We now also know that all the money Hillary is supposedly raising for down ticket candidates is in fact just going to be bribe money for the super delegates.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)That could be tasty
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)TheFarseer
(9,328 posts)And a mysoginistic racist is the kind of candidate Democrats would line up to vote for. And in terms of raw votes, Hillary seems to have won without supers. Superdelegates suck. Screw superdelegates. All they did was make the whole process look like it was rigged.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)party: they are ones that will have to work with the person. The GOP
cannot work with Trump: he's crazy
TheFarseer
(9,328 posts)I have no problem if they influence with their endorsements, but with supers we might as well go back to the smoke filled rooms from the 1800s. We just don't agree on this issue.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Many became superdelegates for less noble, and less accountable reasons. Like being a lobbyist that gave a lot of money to the party.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Superdelegates are a good idea: They care about the party and have
invested hard work to support the party.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... or a party of the people? Your "Party" is a club, lewebley3, and the people. Aren't. In. It.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Their only qualification is the size of their checkbook.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)tell people where you stand.
Dustlawyer
(10,499 posts)who has great ideas and may make an awesome representative of the people. Another candidate with name recognition would win everytime!
mdbl
(4,976 posts)That should be more than enough
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Free media would be awesome! Then I could focus on my message, and not fundraising!
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)houston16revival
(953 posts)popular opinion
They included many ways to prevent that
We've eroded those safeguards with
direct election of Senators, one man one vote,
in some states elected judges, the beginnings of
watering down the Electoral College
It's opened the door for Trump in the GOP party,
and in the country
The Founding Fathers also feared parties, or as they called them,
factions, because in their day there was a common middle and
genuine compromise
We have lost a lot of reasonableness in our leaders and system
It's polarizing, you know that story
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)To pretend that the original Constitution was perfect (in the sense that your opinion of it is perfect) is a game the RW play.
Specifically an STOTUS justice now deceased.
He used his interpretation of their original intent to justify such BS as:
1 Corporations are people with all the rights of people
2 Money is not property it is speech
3 Limiting corporate political contributions is limiting their Free Speech rights
houston16revival
(953 posts)I am stating something that is widely recognized by Constitutional scholars
as well as political science professors
namely, that the US Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers, themselves
erudite scholars of democracy and the founding and operational principles of
democratic government throughout history known to them at that time, as well
as the reasons governments and civilizations fail
sought to protect the long term best interests of their people, their system, and their
country
by filtering public opinion to prevent mob rule
Original intent is not the purpose of my post, it is a statement of the practical and
mechanical operation of the mechanisms they put in place in their document
I have no time for fools here
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)important decisions. That is why they did not allow direct election of the Senate.
Sorry you have no time for fools like me.
LisaM
(27,864 posts)Most of the population didn't read or write, the colonies were all under separate governments, there were people living out in the woods who probably didn't talk to anyone outside of their immediate circle for months - the rules they had would be terrible now, but were clearly designed to have an informed electorate.
You just can't make an apples to apples comparison.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)His views. He asserted that moving to direct elections of the Senate was contrary to the founders intent to prevent "mob rule".
The PTB are working hard now to prevent an informed electorate from existing.
mdbl
(4,976 posts)I prayed and prayed for that. And I'm not even religious. LOL
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)...we could get rid of those pesky voters and allow the elites to choose our leadership.
harun
(11,348 posts)nothing to do with Primaries. Someone winning a Primary doesn't win the election or make law.
Dem's can use super delegates to pick unpopular candidates over popular ones at their own peril.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)You have to be a member of the Democratic Party for 5 years in order to run in the Democratic Party presidential primary.
Otherwise, I vote to keep party faithful superdelegates!
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)LiberalFighter
(51,403 posts)By the numbers.
Pledged Delegates Only -- Clinton: 1704 --- Sanders: 1414 --- Losing by 290 delegates.
Pledged & Unpledged -- Clinton: 2202 --- Sanders: 1455 --- Losing by 747 delegates.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Tour factored in.
Skittles
(153,321 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Skittles
(153,321 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)"He's a loser" What kind of response is that? Are you 12?
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)And by blood pumping, I mean not wanting to at all.
Win the election without the Bernie Sanders supporters you seem to hate so much. HRC does so below mediocre with independents. Attitudes like yours will keep us home if she is the nominee because why should we vote for someone who has pretty said she doesn't need us?
LiberalFighter
(51,403 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)thesquanderer
(12,002 posts)For example, in Vermont, there is actually no way for someone to register as a member of one party of another.
But I don't see any reason to add severe rules like that anyway, which can just as easily rule out "good" candidates as "bad" ones. I think it has to be up to the voters to determine whether someone meets their own criteria for deserving their vote, I don't think the state has to place stiffer restrictions on the options.
For an example of how it could work the other way, maybe someone should have to be a resident of a state for 5 years before running for Senate in that state, yes? But then Hillary could not have become Senator. Tough restrictions can cut both ways. And you can't make any assumptions about who will really benefit.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Vermont Representative Peter Welch is a Democrat.
Vermont Gov. Shumlin is a Democrat.
Sanders is an independent.
It has nothing to do with party registration. Sanders is running as a Democrat because he says he is a Democrat.
This rule requires the presidential candidate has been saying it for 5 years - not saying something else for the last 5 years.
thesquanderer
(12,002 posts)By that standard, so is Bernie.
But before they qualify to get on a ballot, as far as I know, there's no "official" declaration of any party affiliation in VT.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Sanders is not a Democratic Senator. He is the longest running independent in Congress.
The Sanders Rule is very specific, just as getting rid of superdelegates is very specific.
green917
(442 posts)The moment he decided to run as a democrat, it changed his party affiliation (by the bylaws of the senate). which is not to mention the fact that he has been a better champion of democratic ideals over his long stint as an independent than most democrats have been.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Except for his Democratic presidential primary campaign, I see nothing associating him to the Democratic Party - he just "caucuses" with us.
green917
(442 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)... then, if we are going to distinguish one person more or less a democrat than another in our party. If Bernie isn't a Democrat, then what do we call Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton wasn't a real Democrat when he was elected. He was a right wing democrat (a DLCer) thus so, since he went along with the idea that Democrats couldn't get elected to office anymore, unless they leaned severely to the right, went corporate, etc.
Let's do. Let's talk "Party" politics.
Bring it on!!!!
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Reagan defeated an incumbent Democratic president after one term away from the party that gave us Nixon.
Dukakis was crushed by Bush at the end of a scandal-ridden second term of St. Ronnie.
Three Republican terms in a row!
Your biased revisionist perspective towards Clinton does not reflect at all the hope and promise we felt electing Clinton. And Gore was ideal!
This was in the face of the mid-term Gingrich revolution - repeated again after the Obama election.
You all need to stop pushing a fantasy that has never existed.
GoneOffShore
(17,346 posts)since the beginning.
Clinton Inc., has always been about the bottom line - making money for the closely held corporation.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)Can you believe someone calling himself a Democrat would have the nerve to disagree with me? Insinuating that I am out of my mind!!! Whining about Ronald Reagan????????
(Where is that crying baby sound when need it?)
Who is out of their mind in the Democratic Party folks?
Is it the real Democrats or the WJC-HRC Inc wing of the democratic party?
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Our vote was at the Iowa Third District Convention last weekend. The vote was to amend the state platform to include that we are against Super Delegates.
As you can imagine the vote split down the line with Clinton delegates overwhelmingly voting "Nay" and Sanders delegates overwhelmingly voting "Aye."
Unfortunately, the vote failed by ONE vote; 169 Nays
168 Ayes
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)a private party what to do. If people want to run for office they can anytime
they want: but it is up to the parties to decide how to conduct themselves.
AllyCat
(16,277 posts)Are they like Iron Chefs?
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)thesquanderer
(12,002 posts)LiberalFighter
(51,403 posts)Last edited Fri May 6, 2016, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)
is because they think their candidate is harmed by it. They don't have a clue as to what is happening with the delegate results.
Clinton is ahead of Sanders by 290 pledged delegates with 933 pledged delegates remaining.
Clinton is ahead of Sanders by 747 total delegates with 1107 remaining of both pledged & unpledged delegates.
Clinton would be ahead of Sanders using the Republican "Winner Take All" method 2,266 to 838.
What opponents also fail to understand is that if automatic delegates were eliminated the pledged delegates would be the elected government officials and party officials with very few of them from outside that circle.
By this time in 2008 (After Indiana and North Carolina primaries) Obama was ahead of Clinton 1652 to 1592 delegates. A difference of 60 delegates.
Delegates in 2008 was 3,566 pledged and 852 unpledged for a total of 4,418. The majority of the pledged delegates was 1,784. Obama had 1,842.5 delegate votes compared to Clinton's 1,720.5 a difference of 122 delegates.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)jopacaco
(133 posts)I would expect that it is super!
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)I could have read your post wrong, if so, please forgive me. I don't have my readers on (damn 40's killing my eyesight). Anywho. What Maine is proposing is a proportional split vs all or nothing, or even by district. Forget the 15% threshhold, forget pledged vs SDs. This is truly we the people, by state (which allows for their different voting rules/until national rules can be set and supported) even when SDs get that extra vote.
I could not agree with more. I don't care who it counts for or against, do the math or don't. But here's the paragraph:
In March Sanders defeated Clinton with 64 percent of the vote.
LiberalFighter
(51,403 posts)The math used to determine delegates and the method of allocating delegates based on election results does allocate delegates proportionally both when determining how many each state receives and allocated. The same for the automatic delegates.
The Green Papers has the math to determine how many delegates each state receives.
Check out states that have already completed their primaries. TGP shows the percent for each congressional district and the delegate split. One of the quirks is that districts with even number delegates of 8 or less can usually result in an even split. Most districts have 8 or less delegates. If a candidate has the most votes doesn't have more than 50.5% each candidate receives the same number of delegates. The winning candidate ends up losing a possible delegate while the other candidate stays even. They could all add up if the winner got it based on votes.
Unless a candidate is a John Edwards, Donald Trump, or other similar type candidate automatic delegates will not be a factor. They are going to do what is best for the party by weighing the factors. They did with Obama in 2008.
So what that really means is that how the pledged delegates play out will be the outcome of the nomination without the automatic delegates. It would have to be something drastic for Clinton's lead of nearly 290 delegates would disappear.
Gore1FL
(21,185 posts)If they ever changed the outcome of the pledged delegates, the party would explode on national television.
LiberalFighter
(51,403 posts)Only because they don't know enough about it. And the ones that stir it up are the media and losers. Probably Republicans too. Yet, they don't say anything about the unbound delegates that Republicans have in their primaries. Neither the various methods they conduct their elections.
The Democratic nomination process is designed to get the best possible outcome. With an attempt to achieve it with the pledged delegates. It is not perfect because the states do not have the same type of primaries or even the hours to hold the elections. The DNC does not get to decide that part. The delegates are primarily apportioned at the congressional and also the state level with at least one state using counties instead of districts because they only have one district. That gives even second place candidates the opportunity to gain a few additional delegates if they are stronger in some parts of the state. But it also can disadvantage a winning candidate when the margin of the win is not enough to split the results to favor them mainly when only an even number of delegates are available.
The method of allotting delegates provides more delegates that is based on Democratic turnout for a Presidential candidate. Meaning that states with comparable population will have more delegates if they are more blue than red. Even states that are all red could have differences just by having a higher turnout on the Democratic side.
One of the creators of this system is Sanders' campaign manager, Tad Devine. He should know how to play the system to their advantage. But even with that knowledge he couldn't accomplish it because all of the numbers worked against them.
Bodych
(133 posts)...the year that super delegates were invented? How did the GOP exist without them?
We know their intended purpose: To protect the best interests of the party.
However, many super delegates became beholden to one politician before the primary season even started!
So how did these folks know they were protecting the best interests of the party, well before candidates released their strategies, agendas, proposals, etc?
They didn't.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Or by looking at their record. I had already decided to support Hillary Clinton before she announced her run.
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)What a fucking joke!
Bodych
(133 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)General election, yes. The primary is not an election. A primary is conducted by an organization known as a political party and is not run by the government.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)That's why there are Independents all over the country whose tax $$ paid for the primaries, but who are pissed off because they weren't allowed to vote in them.
Any election, including primaries, must follow election laws, so YES, a primary must be one person, one vote.
Bodych
(133 posts)You are exactly right.
Taxpayer money pays for election assets (human and electronic).
I don't believe most Americans know how they've got taxation without representation, right down to the party level.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)as in the above post. Civics classes used to be required in High School. We MUST get them back in the national curriculum.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Same as general election. If you don't vote, is that taxation without representation?
We live in a representative Republic, not a democracy.
If you want to have a say, participate!
We are advocating for open primaries, where independents can vote. Why is this so confusing?
Independents don't intend to register with a party, but they want a voice in WHO appears on their GE ballot.
If you don't want to give them that voice, then stop using their money to fund primaries. I'm a registered Democrat, and I know the rules not only in my state, but others. Some of them are flat out ridiculous (NY, for one), intentionally designed for voter suppression.
BTW:
When do you stop pretending that we live in a representative Republic instead of an oligarchy? Only when the Constitution is amended? Is that sorta like the declaration that we don't need no voting rights act because racial bigotry and suppression no longer exist?
LiberalFighter
(51,403 posts)Nothing stops them from forming their own party.
SunSeeker
(51,827 posts)It is their refusal to join a party that precludes them from participating in a party primary.
Gman
(24,780 posts)The state conducts the election. You file to run with the party. You draw names for ballot position with the party. The state counts the results.
As for one person one vote. The party is a private non-profit organization that makes its own rules as to who votes and in general, when.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)No one should be forced to pay for an election that they cannot participate in.
SunSeeker
(51,827 posts)There are a lot of things my taxes pay for that I can't participate in.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)As someone else said, no taxation without representation.
SunSeeker
(51,827 posts)This is not taxation without representation. The representatives who tax you were duly elected. You do get to choose which party's nominee gets to represent you. If you want more of a say in who a party picks as their nominee, then join that party.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)But political parties are PRIVATE institutions. They should pay for closed primaries out of their own budget.
Should the taxpayers foot the bill for elections in the Kiwanis Club, the Elks Club, the Moose Lodge, or any other private organization?
SunSeeker
(51,827 posts)Closed primaries still allow any party to field candidates to be chosen by members of that party in the taxpayer funded primary election. It is your decision to not be a member of any party. The taxpayers subsidize primaries for parties since they serve an important function for our society (determining who the candidates will be from each party).
LiberalFighter
(51,403 posts)and having the ability to participate. The colonists had the former while voters today have the latter. Otherwise, people that never vote would also be considered in the same light as those not being allowed.
Those that never vote do so voluntarily.
Those that don't register to vote in a primary do so voluntarily.
It is involuntary when they are not allowed to vote under any circumstance.
downeastdaniel
(497 posts)Know.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)the elections held is so fucking Democratic.
(shouldn't be necessary, but...)
Gore1FL
(21,185 posts)They are operating on those set in 2012.
http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/diary/5341/
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)That would not be the rules set in 1982, or those that worked up to this moment.
That is called changing the rules after the election is run.
I have no problem with eliminating them beginning in 2020, or establishing different rules for their allocation in 2020. I oppose changing it in this election.
Gore1FL
(21,185 posts)We aren't re-writing the rules. They have yet to be written in the first place.
LiberalFighter
(51,403 posts)The rules have already been created and promulgated.
DNC 2016 Convention Call, Delegate Selection Rules & Regs
The delegates as a whole does not determine the rules that will be used. That is the domain of the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC. They are created by them and approved by the DNC members. Unless a delegate is a DNC member they don't vote on it. Even Democratic congressional members don't get to vote unless they are also a DNC member.
Gore1FL
(21,185 posts)H. Rules Committee:
1. The Rules Committee shall issue a
report to the Democratic National
Convention recommending the
Permanent Rules of the Convention, the
Convention agenda, the permanent
officers of the Democratic National
Convention, amendments to the Charter
2016 Call for the Democratic National Convention
Page | 12
of the Democratic Party of the United
States, and resolutions providing for the
consideration of any other matter not
provided for in the Permanent Rules of
the Convention and not contained in the
reports of other standing committees.
The foregoing notwithstanding, no
amendment to the Charter of the
Democratic Party shall be effective
unless and until it is subsequently
ratified by a vote of the majority of the
entire membership of the Democratic
National Committee.
LiberalFighter
(51,403 posts)The foregoing notwithstanding, no amendment to the Charter of the Democratic Party shall be effective unless and until it is subsequently ratified by a vote of the majority of the entire membership of the Democratic National Committee.
The DNC consists of State Party Chairs, Vice Chairs, and State DNC members. That numbers about 434 of the 715 current automatic delegates. The pledged delegates will not get a vote to ratify it. Current and past party leaders, Governors, and congressional members will not get a vote on it unless they are also a DNC member. For instance, Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii was a DNC member until she resigned her position so she could commit to Sanders.
Gore1FL
(21,185 posts)LiberalFighter
(51,403 posts)Gore1FL
(21,185 posts)Redness
(18 posts)As I see it, there are two basic arguments for super-delegates:
Some point out that the Democratic primaries are not the general election. The problem with that argument is that the general election is in some ways even more rigged than the primaries. Barriers include discriminatory ballot access criteria, excessive ballot and debate access criteria, and the explicitly bipartisan composition of the electoral commission itself. When general elections are biased in favor of particular parties, the process as a whole can clearly only be said to be democratic if those parties have true intra-party democracy.
As for the "mob rule" argument, the republican argument, the necrocratic argument, it insists that, because the living fickly change their minds as the facts change, they should submit to the rule of the dead, whether it be the nation's dead founders, the capitalist's dead labor, or the party bosses' dead thought.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,258 posts)TomCADem
(17,390 posts)nt
desmiller
(747 posts)I'll be extremely ecstatic if they destroy the super delegate system all together.