Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Ehhhh
1) Super delegates aren't even a problem. They're only a problem this cycle because they don't like Sanders. Had he been winning them by the margin she's winning them by (something close to 12-1) this wouldn't be an issue. It's a safe guard against people like Trump and would only come into effect in close races tbh.
2) Never  . I love the idea of closed primaries. Have a mix of some being open and closed
3) Agreed. Or, you could have the small states be caucuses but the big ones being primaries. Caucuses still seem important tbh. |
1) Meh. Superdelegates have always been controversial. They were controversial 8 years ago. They were controversial
since the 1980s. They haven't decided an election before, but the
appearance of corruption can have equally negative PR effects as actual corruption.
The whole "safe guard" thing is a little silly in my opinion. It was established in the 80's to ensure we get people that can win in the general election, correct? So we picked candidates that can win in the general election, that went on to lose the general election (1980. 1984, 1988.
) The Democratic Party will never get a Trump-like candidate in the near future. The base won't allow it. The Democratic base is to strongly minorities and social justice conscience whites for that to happen.
Even if you don't believe. Even if you are truly worried about some fringe cadidate that will be deeply unpopular and deeply divisive. Oh well. The Party and people reap what is sows. There have been a thousand articles explaining that the GOP created the conditions for Trump. If the GOP had superdelegates and used that as a method to deny him the nomination, assuming he had a plurality or even majority of the popular vote, then he would run third party and whole party would go down in flames in November.
Do you want that for the Democratic Party? You want it to get torn a part becomes elected officials picked a candidate other than the popular vote? Do you want another 2000 presidential election? Ralph Nader only got 97,488 votes, yet it was enough to "spoil" the election. Trust me Bernie Sanders is
much more popular right now than Ralph Nader ever was. I'm not worried about Bernie running third party, but I am worried about his supporters either A) not showing up to the polls, B) voting Green Party or another party, or C) write Bernie in. Even if only 1% of his supporters did this, it could still "spoil" the election.
I'm not worried about this happening this November at all, but add in a Trump like Democrat and superdelegates going against the will of the people, this problem is exacerbated. Also, the fact that all contests are proportional means that it would be much easier for the DNC establishment to deny some a nomination. Winner take all contests have
really helped Trump. He only got 32% of the vote in South Carolina and 45% in Florida and Arizona,
yet got 100% of the delegates. I can see the RNC instituting proportional voting. That would kill Trump's candidacy.
2) Why would we not want to bring independents into the mix? If they feel like there voice/vote doesn't matter to the Democratic Party, then they will be less likely to vote for them in November.
3) If you want this, then you probably have to compromise. We can't just demand policies changes that would only help Hillary in this campaign.
All of her Youtube videos have like 90% dislikes and most of the comments say #feeltheBern and Hillary for Prison...Don't start playing the victim now sis 
