There is an awful lot of love being shown for the idea of holding the once every four years national meeting of our political parties in a way that will freeze out many, in some years maybe even most, of the local and statewide leaders of that party. Have you really thought about the implications of that?
1. Superdelegates were created in the 1980s. It's not like they've been around forever, and yet the Dems managed to survive previous conventions. 2. The GOP doesn't have them. And they survive. (Well, they have until now.) 3. It's not like there aren't other ways to include the people you mention. The question is really only whether they should have the vote they do in the nominating contest, or whether that contest should be decided by the primaries and caucuses alone. That's in effect how they operate anyway, since all superdelegates ever actually do is confirm the decision of the primaries and caucuses. The problem you identify isn't a valid problem at all. There's a myriad of ways those people could be included in the formal structure of the party convention while at the same time affirming and reinforcing the idea and practice that pledged delegates elected by the primaries and caucuses alone should determine the nominee.
That 1968 one kinda got away from them a little bit. Though there were extenuating circumstances that year.
Have you forgotten?? Only 2 years had passed since England had won the World Cup. Queen Liz hadn't finished Knighting everyone in sight! Also...ze Germans were still trying to maintain their dignity.
Here in Virginia voters are not registered by party. You just go to the polling place and ask for the ballot you want. So who are the democrats/republicans? But every election (local, at least) they must decide whether to have a primary or a convention/caucus thing. The ultra right wing types in the gop always go for the convention because they dominate those, so they can pick horrible candidates like Duccinelli and that deranged preacher (for governor and lt governor last time). For the dems it doesn't matter because they almost never have more than one candidate. In 23 years I can only remember one democratic primary for anything. But I digress. I say limit the voting to party members but make it simple to become a member of the party. And no delegates, just count the votes. The shenanigans about stealing delegates long after the voting is over, multiple rounds of caucuses and conventions, etc. - on both sides - is a big part of why people are fed up with a corrupt system and think everything is rigged.
Sure. But let's be real. They didn't start up the Hunt Commission after 1968. They started it up after 1980 because Kennedy did a lot of things that Sanders is doing in 2016.
Bernie ain't gonna win this fight ... Sanders collides with black lawmakers: The Congressional Black Caucus 'vehemently' opposes Sanders' call to abolish superdelegates. If they want to keep superdelegates, Sanders won't be able to abolish them. Most he'll get is some accommodation around the edges.
The California Dems are calling for this: Details aside, I would not be surprised if things went that way. Those "guests" will want some official standing and power on the various committees. They're also calling for this: I could certainly see that happening. Clinton will be running the DNC (sorry Bernie, but it's true), and if 2008 and 2016 taught her anything, it's that caucuses are terrible. Indeed, that's sort of how I see this being negotiated. Yes, she'll say to the Berniecrats, we'll give in on superdelegates at least to a degree, but in exchange you're giving up those activist dominated caucuses.
Nope. But they can punish states who don't by reducing their delegates. (Hell, they could refuse caucus delegates entirely if they wanted.) Alternatively, they can give bonus delegates to states that abide by their wishes. Or both. Carrots and sticks, you know.
I used to view superdelegates as a scourge on the people by the powerful. I now believe they are necessary to protect us from ourselves.
Yeah, I remember someone (probably Maddow) making the point back in February or March that Preibus probably wished he had a bunch of superdelegates to call on. I agreed then & now, and think that Bernie's fixation on superdelegates was counter-productive. That said, I'm still curious to know @Q*bert Jones III 's take.
In a political climate where our media inputs always agree with our preconceptions, it's important that there's a check on the people. Otherwise we'll just nominate the most radical candidate available every time. The Republicans have proven that voters sometimes need to be protected from ourselves.
I don't care how the parties select their candidates, as long as they don't expect the public to spend any money doing it and as long as they don't erect any roadblocks for independent candidates to get on the ballot.
... bump ... I suspect the Democratic primary process is going to be reformed in more radical ways than we were expecting last we saw this thread in July.
Holy. Flying. ********. The Democratic nominee - who was the least popular nationally-known Democrat in the last thirty years, the first female major-party candidate, a scandal-ridden, insular individual who trusted few people and eschewed the Obama campaign's 8-year infrastructure - has won the popular vote by an estimated 1.5 to 2 million votes, and was narrowly defeated in the Electoral College by a man who won't even get as many votes as Mitt Romney or George W. Bush - a man who enters office with sky-high unfavorable ratings and is proceeding to backtrack on every campaign pledge he made, a man who will almost certainly preside over a recession - and the plan is to rethink everything the Democrats do? Jesus ********ing Christ, guys. Maybe the Democrats do need to spend 8 years in the wilderness.
Republicans are very good at knowing they are right, even when reality disagrees. Perhaps the Democrats could take a page from their book now and then. This is one of those times.
I'm more worried about state governments honestly. Some of the laws coming out of the South are horrifying and they keep picking up more legislative seats. At what point do we start talking about federal Constitutional amendments?