Elections BREAKING: Democrats strip superdelegates of power and reform caucuses!

Arkain2K

Si vis pacem, para bellum
@Steel
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
33,423
Reaction score
5,684
Democracy is alive again!!!

Democratic unity disrupted by battle over Bernie Sanders-backed superdelegate plan

Some in the party are trying to weaken the power of superdelegates to determine the party's nominee in 2020.
by Alex Seitz-Wald / Aug.24.2018

180824-dnc-meeting-chicago-protest-11149_ace8e64d4250e0b626d81d305538ae18.fit-2000w.jpg

Demonstrators protest outside the Hyatt Hotel where the Democratic National Committee kicked off its summer meeting on Thursday in Chicago.

CHICAGO — The Democratic National Committee is set to vote this weekend on a Bernie Sanders-backed plan to weaken the influence of superdelegates in what has become a contentious showdown between factions at a time when the party is trying to project unity.

After two years of work on the controversial issue, a delicate compromise that emerged from a labyrinthine reform process has encountered last-minute opposition before the crucial vote here Saturday at the party organization's summer gathering.

"We're fighting it, we're picking up support, we're creating a lot of doubt," said Bob Mulholland, a DNC member from California who opposes the change.

The proposed change would not abolish superdelegates, but would potentially greatly diminish their influence by preventing them from voting for the presidential nominee at the party's convention — unless the convention deadlocks, which hasn't happened since 1952, or the outcome of the vote is already a done deal.

Tensions were running high as DNC members, nearly all of whom are superdelegates, gathered at a hotel in downtown Chicago to set the rules for the 2020 Democratic presidential contest. Officials are bracing for a potentially noisy floor fight Saturday, which could undermine the sense of unity the party has been hoping to project as it heads into the November midterms.

The fight over superdelegates — the DNC members, congressmen, governors and other party leaders who can vote for whomever they want to nominate in a presidential primary — has scrambled the establishment-progressive internal split, with DNC Chairman Tom Perez aggressively pushing a reform package to weaken superdelegates that has been endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

"It is really kind of bizarre to actually be on the same side as Perez on this one," said Selina Vickers, a activist from West Virginia who is on the sixth day of a hunger strike in support of the change.

"They're doing this very strategically because they want to win," Vickers added of Hillary Clinton-wing DNC members who support the change. "When people feel like their vote doesn't count, they're not going to turn out to vote."


Superdelegates overwhelmingly sided with Clinton over Sanders during their 2016 primary, with Vickers noting that Clinton won more delegates from her state of West Virginia even though Sanders won every single county in the primary. Clinton secured more delegates because every superdelegate from the state backed her.

The system, which was created in the 1980s as a failsafe to prevent the party from nominating a critically flawed candidate, has been controversial for years.

Critics say it gives too much power to a small group party insiders who could theoretically overturn the will of voters, as expressed in state primaries and caucuses, although that has never happened.

Not surprisingly, many superdelegates are not thrilled about losing their influence.

Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and a rising star in the House, sent a letter to Perez this month expressing opposition to the change.

"One group should not be harmed at the expense of the other," he wrote. "To add insult to injury, it appears that this is a solution in search of a problem. Unelected delegates have never gone against the will of primary voters in picking Democratic presidential nominees."

But opponents of the change acknowledge they are likely outnumbered, even as they scramble to scrap together enough votes to block the measure Saturday.

"I'm opposed to it, I'll be arguing against it, but the numbers don't look good," Mulholland said. "This is a group that has succumbed to Bernie Sanders and it's embarrassing."

For Perez, who has faced rear-guard opposition since his contentious election to chairman early last year, the reform could be a legacy-maker.

"I know this is personal, this is emotional, this is incredibly important," Perez told dissident DNC members Thursday. "And what I would simply say to you is don't underestimate the source of your power. The source of your power has been a lifetime of work and service that makes you in-demand."

"As a so-called 'superdelegate' myself," Howard Dean, a former party chair who supports the change, said in an email to DNC members, "we need to unify around our shared values, inspire trust in voters, and energize the grassroots. And one of the best ways we can do that is by reassuring our voters that this is their party. This is the party of the people."

 
Last edited:
lol wow so impressive.

Now it's actually a democratic process, which is incredibly ironic.
 
Would have been nice to have this prior to Bernie vs Hillary. But it's still a great step forward.
 
Democrats strip superdelegates of power and reform caucuses in 'historic' move
Tom Perez and Bernie Sanders teamed up to push the biggest reform package the party has seen in decades
by Alex Seitz-Wald / Aug.25.2018

180825-dnc-philadelphia-al-1224_7505d330bbfdf1e444e3961fdf2629f8.fit-2000w.jpg

CHICAGO — The Democratic National Committee voted Saturday to significantly curtail the power of superdelegates and make presidential caucuses more accessible, overcoming objections from a vocal minority of its membership.

The reform package, pushed by DNC Chairman Tom Perez and allies of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, among others, passed overwhelmingly by voice vote at the DNC’s summer meeting here — two years after the process started.

Perez and others hailed the outcome as momentous, saying the reforms will help welcome new people into the party by reassuring them that their vote will never be overruled by the party leaders who can vote for whomever they want for the presidential nomination.

“Today is a historic day for our party,” Perez said. “We passed major reforms that will not only put our next presidential nominee in the strongest position possible, but will help us elect Democrats up and down the ballot, across the country.”

The change will prohibit superdelegates from voting for president at the party’s 2020 convention, unless the outcome is already assured or it deadlocks, which hasn’t happened in decades. The vast majority of superdelegates sided with Hillary Clinton over Sanders in their primary fight two years ago.

"Today's decision by the DNC is an important step forward," Sanders said in a statement. "This has been a long and arduous process, and I want to thank Tom Perez and all of those who made it happen.”

The new rules will also make caucuses more accessible by requiring state parties to accept absentee votes, addressing concerns that the caucuses are less democratic than primaries because they require people to physically attend the events in order to participate in the presidential nominating process in their state.

A number of state parties are already considering replacing their caucuses with primaries, with some state party chairs here predicting the 2020 nominating contest will feature many fewer caucuses than in 2016.

The DNC can’t force states to change their rules but the reform package includes measures to encourage states to open their primaries and caucuses to independent voters, as well as to expand same-day voter registration in order to bring new voters.

Saturday’s vote was the conclusion of a lengthy process that began just before the 2016 Democratic National Convention, coming out of the animosity of that year's presidential primary.

The party created the Unity Reform Commission to propose changes, which then led to 83 hours of discussion in the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, which then led to a vote by the party’s Executive Committee and then, finally, approval by the full DNC in Chicago.

“We’ve debated this ad nauseam,” said union president Lee Saunders of AFSCME, reflecting the fatigue of many in the room. “Our job as the Democratic Party is to get Democrats elected, so let’s start that right now.”

Nearly every DNC member is a superdelegate, so some were not eager to give up their power.

Defenders of the status quo headed into the meeting knowing they were outnumbered, but determined to fight. However, after a procedural vote that went overwhelmingly in Perez’ favor, they saw the writing on the wall.

In a dramatic moment, Don Fowler, a former DNC chair who has been leading the resistance to the superdelegate change, stood to essentially concede and call for a swift approval of the changes by acclimation, rather than a full vote by paper ballots.

That was met with a standing ovation from delegates, many of whom were eyeing the clock as they hoped to catch flights later in the afternoon.

“I was skeptical of this proposal, but I’m a team player, and the most important thing we can do is elect Democrats this fall and in 2020,” said William Owens, a DNC member from Tennessee, choking back tears. “I’m trying to say this without crying.”

The debate was passionate and personal on both sides, provoking a hunger strike, invocations of the Bible and JFK, and some hurt feelings.

But in an interview with NBC News, Perez said he'd much rather have passion than apathy.

He compared the fight to a healthy "family" discussion, and said he was pleased the party ultimately decided to take a "leap of faith" to show that it trusts its grassroots and its voters.

In particular, he hoped young people, many of whom have been registering as independents instead of Democrats, will "look at what we did today and say, wow, the party is listening to me."

Some of the strongest opposition to the change came from black delegates, especially in the older generation, who said it would “disenfranchise” African-American and Latino party leaders and make their convention less diverse.

“Are you telling me that I’m going to go to a convention, after my 30 years of blood, sweat, and tears for this party, that you’re going to take away my right to appease a group of people?” said DNC Vice Chair Karen Carter Peterson, a black Louisiana State Senator, presumably referring to white Sanders supporters.

Proponents of the change dispute that charge, noting state parties will still include diversity requirements in their delegate selection rules, and that superdelegates can still endorse and advocate for candidates.

The changes are the most consequential reforms to the party’s nominating process since the 1980s, when it created superdelegates. Republican have no equivalent to superdelegates in their party.

 
Last edited:
“Are you telling me that I’m going to go to a convention, after my 30 years of blood, sweat, and tears for this party, that you’re going to take away my right to appease a group of people?” said DNC Vice Chair Karen Carter Peterson, a black Louisiana State Senator, presumably referring to white Sanders supporters.

<LikeReally5>
 
Well, I think Hillary and Trump are the perfect examples that candidates should not come from a primary voting procedure.
 
This is about the smartest thing I’ve heard come out of the Democrats corner in awhile.

Fuck super delegates and a rigged system.
 
Bernie lost either way. I guess this is a good proactive measure but I think people don't realize our election has a lot of control from the two parties that do whatever rules they want for the primary.
 
Bernie lost either way. I guess this is a good proactive measure but I think people don't realize our election has a lot of control from the two parties that do whatever rules they want for the primary.
There is a strong argument to be made that he lost (at least partially) because almost all super delegates were committed to Hillary ahead of the primaries.

This meant he would have needed a popular vote landslide to actually win the nomination.

This has several potential effects:
1. People voted for Hillary instead on Bernie because the party establishment- through the super delegate commitments- was clearly telling them to.
2. Subconsciously, people want their vote to “count,” and it seemed like only a vote for Hillary counted, so they rationalized reasons to vote for her (including tha she would be a better candidate in the general election (although all polls clearly showed the opposite)).
3. Some voters stayed home because it seemed Bernie had no chance due to the super delegates.

No matter how you cut it, it’s a shitty system.
 
Last edited:
Sounds...great, actually. Good for them.
 
There is a strong argument to be made that he lost (at least partially) because almost all super delegates were committed to Hillary ahead of the primaries.

This meant he would have needed a popular vote landslide to actually win the nomination.

That would assume primary voters didn't go out to vote Bernie because of that knowledge. I highly doubt that amount of people, if any, affected the popular vote. He lost before super delegates came into it.
 
That would assume primary voters didn't go out to vote Bernie because of that knowledge. I highly doubt that amount of people, if any, affected the popular vote. He lost before super delegates came into it.
See above.

I think you underestimate how many Democratic voters voted for Hillary because she was clearly the party’s choice— a fact largely revealed through superdelegate voting intentions... put it this way: there is a reason that superdelegates announce their intended votes AHEAD of time.

Primary voters— especially in closed primary states— are already the most “party loyal” people. Having one candidate presented as the clear favorite of the party establishment has a huge amount of sway— consciously or subconsciously— on those folks.
 
See above.

I think you underestimate how many Democratic voters voted for Hillary because she was clearly the party’s choice— a fact largely revealed through superdelegate voting intentions... put it this way: there is a reason that superdelegates announce their intended votes AHEAD of time.

You think super delegates determine who the establishment candidate is? Clinton was the established pick from 2012 and on. She pretty much got half the field to not run against her. That wasn't realized by the super delegate vote.
 
You think super delegates determine who the establishment candidate is? Clinton was the established pick from 2012 and on. She pretty much got half the field to not run against her. That wasn't realized by the super delegate vote.
I think the superdelegates are one way of sending that message to the masses.
 
Given the news I just want to take a moment to reach out to @Jack V Savage and make sure he's not thinking about harming himself. Jack, you have friends who are here for you. You will get through this. :)
 
Good thing to see left and right sherdoggers agreeing on something...
 
Back
Top