Posted on Feb 22, 2016
Is it fair that Super Delegates are voting for Hillary regardless of the people's choice for Bernie?
16.4K
177
132
15
15
0
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?
Democrats
Politics
Election 2016
Hillary Clinton
Bernie Sanders
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 40
1
1
0
It's pretty much just like we the people don't actually vote the president in, it is the Electoral College.
(1)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
We do, for the most part, through our elected delegates. They vote with the popular votes 99% of the time. The Supers are political hacks and have control depending on the party. The Republicans are more fair, in that there are about 1/3-1/4 of the Democrat machine that seriously can effect the vote and swing it over to the party choice, as they did with Obama over Hillary n 2008. It's a good system, if only they would use it as originally constructed to permit equal representation.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Mark Ramos
PO3 (Join to see) I agree with MAJ (Join to see), there is simply not enough information in your example to draw a conclusion. There are a few scenarios that come to mind where your example is true, but it doesn't mean what you concluded.
The important principle to keep in mind is whether one person's vote counts more than anyone else's as with the Democrat's use of Super Delegates.
The important principle to keep in mind is whether one person's vote counts more than anyone else's as with the Democrat's use of Super Delegates.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
http://www.electproject.org/2012p
Look at those turn out from the link, and compare to the red blue states graph . GOP designed the system to make sure their candidate is "MODERATE". To make sure the GOP candidates pay more attention to the Blue states. It is by design that GOP candidates must crave toward the DNC run states. But then Red states can turn blue and blue states can turn red ... that is another story.
Look at those turn out from the link, and compare to the red blue states graph . GOP designed the system to make sure their candidate is "MODERATE". To make sure the GOP candidates pay more attention to the Blue states. It is by design that GOP candidates must crave toward the DNC run states. But then Red states can turn blue and blue states can turn red ... that is another story.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Matthew Wall
Yeah this isn't making sense. There are bonus delegates that come in to play as well. I think you are over analyzing it PO3 (Join to see)
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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...
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtuWiHYmr4U
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Maj Werner Saemmler-Hindrichs - You are not missing anything. By any measure she is winning and barring something no one can predict, she will win.
In answering the question, I'm speaking in general terms. Not the specific case. I understand why the Democrats put the super delegate system in place. I don't think it is nefarious or underhanded. Its actually smart. The Democrat elites do not want a populist uprising that picks someone who may be popular within the party and for the moment, but cannot win a general election. The precise dilemma the Republicans are in now.
The Democrats method of dealing with the problem seems less sordid than what the Republicans will go through if there is a contested convention. Even though I understand what they set up I don't agree with it. A little chaos can create the impetus to reformation.
In answering the question, I'm speaking in general terms. Not the specific case. I understand why the Democrats put the super delegate system in place. I don't think it is nefarious or underhanded. Its actually smart. The Democrat elites do not want a populist uprising that picks someone who may be popular within the party and for the moment, but cannot win a general election. The precise dilemma the Republicans are in now.
The Democrats method of dealing with the problem seems less sordid than what the Republicans will go through if there is a contested convention. Even though I understand what they set up I don't agree with it. A little chaos can create the impetus to reformation.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Maj Werner Saemmler-Hindrichs - It is because when people don't like what is happening, and who is doing it, they do two things. 1) They hear what confirms their own beliefs, rather than what is really said. 2) They do not take the time to say to themselves, "Do I really believe (insert party of choice here) want (insert nasty assumption here)?"
I believe HRC gets an inordinate amount of money for her speeches. She's just not that good of a speaker. No matter how bad I want it to be something nefarious, the worst I think anyone could legitimately pin on her is not avoiding the "appearance of impropriety", while she is still in the political life. But the appearance of impropriety is not impropriety. I suspect that the inordinate fees are based on who she is rather than what she will do.
I believe HRC gets an inordinate amount of money for her speeches. She's just not that good of a speaker. No matter how bad I want it to be something nefarious, the worst I think anyone could legitimately pin on her is not avoiding the "appearance of impropriety", while she is still in the political life. But the appearance of impropriety is not impropriety. I suspect that the inordinate fees are based on who she is rather than what she will do.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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...
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...
(0)
(0)
LT (Join to see)
Cpl Matthew Wall - The 2008 DNC superdelegates were all for Hillary Clinton *at first*... until Barack Obama started winning more primary states than her.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
LT (Join to see) - And, if the FBI refers action for the classified material breach, AND (big and) if the justice department begins action, that could happen again.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
So, does the law regard consensus as a requirement?
While the State Department and Clinton campaign have said the emails in questions were “retroactively classified” or “upgraded” – to justify the more than 1,300 classified emails on her server – those terms are meaningless under federal law.
The former federal law enforcement official said the finding in the January IG letter represents a potential violation of USC 18 Section 793, “gross negligence” in the handling of secure information under the Espionage Act.
While the State Department and Clinton campaign have said the emails in questions were “retroactively classified” or “upgraded” – to justify the more than 1,300 classified emails on her server – those terms are meaningless under federal law.
The former federal law enforcement official said the finding in the January IG letter represents a potential violation of USC 18 Section 793, “gross negligence” in the handling of secure information under the Espionage Act.
(0)
(0)
LT (Join to see)
Maj Werner Saemmler-Hindrichs - I agree. I honestly don't know what the Sanders campaign strategy is at this point, short of praying for a series of electoral miracles in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey *and* California since he would not only have to win all four of those states, but win them by substantial margins just to catch up to her pledged delegate lead. In addition, most of his biggest victories have been in caucus states, where turnout is relatively low compared to primaries, which has resulted in Clinton receiving about 2.5 million more raw votes than Sanders so far (so he can't use the "I'm The People's Choice!" argument).
But even putting all that aside, it's impossible for me to imagine Sanders endearing himself to Democratic superdelegates while he's currently suing the DNC and not doing any fundraising for the party's down-ballot candidates this year.
But even putting all that aside, it's impossible for me to imagine Sanders endearing himself to Democratic superdelegates while he's currently suing the DNC and not doing any fundraising for the party's down-ballot candidates this year.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Should we ditch the Republican and Democratic parties and instead have parties really stand for something? Yes, that sounds like a good idea.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I know quite a few conservatives who vote Libertarian and Liberals who vote Green. Sometimes we hold our nose and vote for a major party... however that might be a mistake.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google