Is it fair that Super Delegates are voting for Hillary regardless of the people's choice for Bernie?

2016-02-22T20:42:57-05:00

Super Delegates have said they are voting for Hillary regardless of what people want. Is this fair to the people who vote? Is the system rigged? Should we do away with Super Delegates?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2016 9:26 PM

2016-02-22T21:26:20-05:00

It is not fair, it is an embodiment of cronyism. It's a fact that the RNC has a primary election system more resistant to power-hording and tampering than the DNC.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Feb 22 at 2016 9:32 PM

2016-02-22T21:32:21-05:00

You'd get a different answer to "fair" say 30-40 years ago. It's still the "party" candidate, hopefully as far as the party bosses are concerned (same for GOP trying to tamp down Trump). Fairness has little to do with it but control has everything to do with it. The Democratic Party opened everything up in 68. The party bosses subsequently freaked because they lost control and were "worried" (code for we know better) that the process was a free for all. So the clamps got put back on so now super delegates make up about 20% of the electorate. They come more into play on 60/40 or closer pledged delegate results if you're talking two candidates. So in reality, the system is "mostly fair" except for the party having a direct 20% vote. Although I don't think the super delegate thing will come into play this cycle, but it would be interesting to see the scenario where Bernie gets say 55/45 of the people and then the party says we know better so Hillary's the nominee the party will put forward on the ballot. I would expect that would so offend enough Dems and Independents, they'd make the party suffer by voting GOP. Then the party will go into freak mode again and the cycle will repeat itself.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Feb 22 at 2016 9:41 PM

2016-02-22T21:41:43-05:00

Doesn't seem so does it?

The parties are not a part of the government, they exist for their own benefit. It is in the interest of the parties to mute the voice of the people in the primaries. Normally they don't have to be very open about it, this year they may have to be blatant.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2016 9:54 PM

2016-02-22T21:54:58-05:00

Each party makes their own rules for choosing candidates, but having the most important delegates being able to choose where they go regardless of the way the party votes seems counterproductive; seeing as how it's supposed to be about picking who the voters want instead of the party old guard.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2016 10:06 PM

2016-02-22T22:06:30-05:00

Of course, it's not fair. It's politics as usual, whenever and wherever THE Clintons and the DNC are involved.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Feb 22 at 2016 10:08 PM

2016-02-22T22:08:17-05:00

Democrats must love Super delegates, because they keep voting Democrat. Besides, DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz clearly told the world that the super delegates are there to protect the Democrat establishment from YOU... The grass roots. We reap what we sow....

Response by CPO Frank Coluccio made Feb 22 at 2016 10:38 PM

2016-02-22T22:38:02-05:00

The head of the DNC, Debbie Wassermann-Schultz said the following in response to the question with responses from Hell-ary's and Bern-out's campaigns:
"In February of 2016, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper, "What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?" Schultz's response was, "Superdelegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists." This clarification was hailed by Clinton supporters as a wise policy to maintain steady, experienced governance, and derided by Sanders supporters as the establishment thwarting the will of the people."

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Feb 22 at 2016 10:45 PM

2016-02-22T22:45:01-05:00

Who wants to know? Democrats? Can't they decide what's fair and eliminate the practice if it isn't fair? Or don't the rank and file of the Democratic Party have any control over their party leadership and its processes? Maybe, fair or not, this is the system they want.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Feb 22 at 2016 11:05 PM

2016-02-22T23:05:09-05:00

Of course it is not fair. As much as I don't like Bernie both he and the voters are about to take it in the rear. Just another example that liberals don't give a crap about the people and will do absolutely anything for power.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Feb 22 at 2016 11:40 PM

2016-02-22T23:40:31-05:00

In a situation where the government thinks resources are better allocated in a direction other than that of the peoples choosing the government can direct those resources where it sees fit. Socialism 101

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 23 at 2016 12:07 AM

2016-02-23T00:07:54-05:00

It's not about "fairness." It's about using the System as designed.

Just like the Electorial System is not about "fairness" compared to the Popular Vote.

The Super-Delegate system is designed to protect against "grass-roots movements" and serve the interests of the Democratic Party. That said, we must remember that Sen. Sanders is NOT a Democrat. He is an Independent who votes "with" Democrats (now affiliated since Presidential Run).

Should "anyone" be allowed to run under a Political Party if they have never actually been a member of said party? Should they be able to leverage the influence & monetary benefits of the Party?

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2016 1:07 AM

2016-02-23T01:07:14-05:00

Sucks when you work hard for something just to have some bureaucrat take it away and give it to someone who didn't earn it huh. I kind of find it to be poetic justice myself...

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2016 1:13 AM

2016-02-23T01:13:54-05:00

No it's a set up. I would think the political party big shots feel American Society in general are to drunk , doped up & selfish to give a shit. That we only care if it affects us , i the problem lands on our door. Other wise most keep a mental state of , lets call it - comfortably numb. How does that sound. One more thing * is it fair you ask ??, not sure.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Feb 23 at 2016 3:06 AM

2016-02-23T03:06:46-05:00

The Democrats are behaving undemocratically? What a shock!

Response by SSG William Rhodes made Feb 23 at 2016 5:56 AM

2016-02-23T05:56:50-05:00

I don't think anyone should support a woman who fail to follow proper procedures with classified information, lied, and obstruct the investigation by wiping out her hardrive. It is absolutely deplorable for anyone even to consider to support hillary especially when she has blood of four Americans serving and representing our country and boldly lied to their families and to the nation.

Response by SSG William Rhodes made Feb 23 at 2016 5:56 AM

2016-02-23T05:56:50-05:00

Response by SSG William Rhodes made Feb 23 at 2016 5:56 AM

2016-02-23T05:56:50-05:00

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Feb 23 at 2016 6:33 AM

2016-02-23T06:33:09-05:00

Unless you're a Democrat, the super delegate isn't much of an issue. If you are a Democrat, the super delegate isn't much of an issue - see 2008, when Hillary won the nomination.

Response by Alan K. made Feb 23 at 2016 6:51 AM

2016-02-23T06:51:06-05:00

Not only is it not fair but It's the exact opposite of how it should be.......You should be BOUND by how your constituents vote. No one should be given the power to vote any way they want, regardless of how the people put them in office voted....It's criminal if you ask me. Basically legal voter fraud!....BTW, in answer to ? NO/YES/YES

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2016 7:18 AM

2016-02-23T07:18:28-05:00

The super delegates things start around 1980s, to prevent a Reagan's like event happen to them. So they rigged it to make sure the "system" get the candidate they wanted.

To do away the "Super Delegate" ... mean .... one must almost do away the parties ... at least tear the party apart and put them back together .... AT LEAST.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Feb 23 at 2016 7:24 AM

2016-02-23T07:24:02-05:00

What say you CPT L S ? Does this smack of the Oligarchy you so often rail against? The Democrats having 794 "Superdelegates" who can vote any way they want, regardless how their district, or State goes, out of 4763 total delegates? Doesn't this bypass the "democracy" you so often laud? I'm looking forward to your position on this, (and your predictable insinuation as to how the GOP is to blame for this departure from democracy, in favor of the Democrat party Oligarchy).

Point of information here.. the Republicans use 3 "Superdelegates" per State, and theirs have to vote the way their State goes. Sounds a lot more "democratic" than the Democrat party process, does it not?

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Feb 23 at 2016 7:39 AM

2016-02-23T07:39:03-05:00

If the Dems allow that to happen, they might as well give up there votes because they wont matter. Id bet most people voting in the Primaries would have a few things to say if the super delegates vote HRC in if Bernie has the popular vote.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Feb 23 at 2016 10:09 AM

2016-02-23T10:09:14-05:00

It's pretty much just like we the people don't actually vote the president in, it is the Electoral College.

Response by PO3 Andrew Unite made Feb 23 at 2016 10:45 AM

2016-02-23T10:45:17-05:00

The ENTIRE system of election is set up to protect against uneducated voters. It's all rigged and will likely never change. When I lived in california my vote was counted less than 1. In wa state it is no different and those who represent the people will make a vote that helps themselves.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2016 11:02 AM

2016-02-23T11:02:13-05:00

The fix is in. Always has been, always will be.

Response by PO3 Donald Murphy made Feb 23 at 2016 12:54 PM

2016-02-23T12:54:42-05:00

The whole system is rigged. Electoral college anyone? Why is it that India (population a billion and a bit) can have "one-man-one-vote" but America can't?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2016 3:10 PM

2016-02-23T15:10:04-05:00

Of course it's fair they're progressive democrats and Socialists. Sharing things that someone earned with someone who didn't earn them is what they strive to achieve. Funny how they begin to bellyache when it is being taken from themselves.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2016 9:33 PM

2016-02-23T21:33:52-05:00

All of our systems are rigged. Those same Superdrlegates that were pledged to Hillary in 2008 voted for Obama. Nothing is decided until November.

Response by Sgt Mark Ramos made Feb 24 at 2016 10:03 AM

2016-02-24T10:03:28-05:00

It's not fair at all, but that is the way the Democrats run their game. Democrats have them, the Republicans don't. It makes perfect sense when you think about it. Democrat philosophy is that there must always be some body of "elders, supervisors, government" that oversees everything and corrects you when your wrong. Republicans believe in personal choice and responsibility.

The Democrats devised a system that will save the party from a candidate that actually believes what they are selling to the public. A candidate like Bernie Sanders.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/223647/superdelegate-101-interview

Superdelegate 101

A primer for Democratic-party watchers.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Feb 24 at 2016 11:45 AM

2016-02-24T11:45:50-05:00

No, its not. But the democrats rig their system just for that purpose. They are not really the party of the people like they claim to be.

Response by Cpl John King made Feb 24 at 2016 12:50 PM

2016-02-24T12:50:11-05:00

Man, it chaps my hide to no end. I saw a statement from the DNC that the purpose of the super delegates was to protect the party from a grass roots movement. To include, but separate them...

REALLY???

Here's the link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/12/we-need-more-questions-like-this-one-from-jake-tapper-to-debbie-wasserman-schultz-video/

Here's the quote:
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available during the primaries in Iowa and in New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates, those that are tied to the candidate that they are pledged to support. And they receive a proportional number of delegates going into the — going into our convention.

Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists. We are, as a Democratic Party, really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grass-roots activists and diverse committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn't competition between them.

We need more questions like this one from Jake Tapper to Debbie Wasserman Schultz [video]

Democratic officials should have to defend the superdelegate system.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Feb 24 at 2016 1:31 PM

2016-02-24T13:31:14-05:00

Cpl Matthew Wall - Corporal; Please define "fair". "The system" is the one that the Democrat party adopted and they are playing by their own rules. It may not be fair that you cannot move your checkers onto the red squares, but that is one of the rules of the game and you have to play by those rules until you can get the "Checker Players Federation" to change them so that they are the way that you want to see them.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 1:41 PM

2016-02-25T13:41:53-05:00

I find their use of Super Delegates very interesting since its more republican (the method, not the party) in nature. They're entrusting the vote to smart individuals to make decisions which won't be swayed by popular opinion, which is a far cry from pure democracy. Perhaps this is their own way of preventing a tyranny of the majority? After all, just consider the intelligence level of the average voter, and fully half of them are less intelligent than that.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Feb 26 at 2016 9:17 AM

2016-02-26T09:17:35-05:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monica-bauer/superdelegates-bernie-sanders_b_9263352.html

Why Superdelegates Won't Feel the Bern

Bernie's the guy who hates fraternities on his college campus, speaks out every chance he gets about how elitist they are, how evil they are, how much mo...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2016 7:37 PM

2016-02-27T19:37:58-05:00

Should we ditch the Republican and Democratic parties and instead have parties really stand for something? Yes, that sounds like a good idea.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 29 at 2016 10:00 AM

2016-02-29T10:00:51-05:00

Two things should be noted here:

1. Superdelegates do not have to "stick with" the candidate they pledge to support. They can switch their vote at any time before the convention. Guarantee you if Bernie Sanders started overtaking her in the primaries, more than a few superdelegates would be reconsidering their allegiance to Hillary.

2. After the 2012 election, the Republican National Committee voted to get rid of superdelegates, who might have been able to stop Donald Trump from steamrolling his way to a nomination now.

People only complain about these things when they don't go the way they want them to. In 2008 Hillary Clinton voters complained about superdelegates and were laughed at and called sore losers. But now suddenly it's a big deal because the process is working to her advantage? Give me a break...

Response by Maj John Bell made Mar 2 at 2016 3:34 PM

2016-03-02T15:34:00-05:00

No, but those are the rules of the game that are set up by the politically elite, who think their vote should mean more than the average Joe. We know they are right, because they tell us so. How big a soda should I be allowed to buy sir? Please tell me.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Mar 3 at 2016 8:32 AM

2016-03-03T08:32:28-05:00

fair, no, but if they nominate Hillary we don't have to worry about another Dem in office.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2016 1:35 PM

2016-04-12T13:35:44-04:00

I know this thread is really old, but I figured I'd pass this along. Samantha Bee does a better job defending the DNC's use of superdelegates better than I did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtuWiHYmr4U

What the Hell Are Superdelegates? | Full Frontal with Samantha Bee |TBS

Shadowy, unaccountable threats to the democratic process or, you know, kind of the opposite? Watch Full Frontal with Samantha Bee all-new Mondays at 10:30/ 9...

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Aug 18 at 2016 1:48 PM

2016-08-18T13:48:01-04:00

Of course it's not fair. If it's not blatantly obvious NOW that the system is rigged, it never will be. We're living in the Matrix. We are nothing more than batteries to power the Power Elites.