jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (4 posts)

Democrats use of Super-Delegates?

  1. Johnny James A profile image80
    Johnny James Aposted 4 months ago

    Currently Democrats utilize "Super-Delegates" to help determine the party nominee for president.  A Super Delegate is an un-elected delegate who is free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination at the party's national convention. These Democratic Party superdelegates include "distinguished" (don't ask me what determines who is distinguished, I am pulling the term from the Democratic handbook) party leaders, and elected officials, including all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors. These delegates can and do pledge their allegiance prior to the convention, however, they are free to change their minds.  Bernie Sanders in this year's primary and caucus season complained vehemently about the "pledging" of the Super-Delegates as he said it makes it appear that his rival has an insurmountable lead in the delegate count which can cause people to change their vote or not vote.  The Electors (delegates) are chosen per the rules under the constitution, which gives the states the right to determine the electors.  Of course the Democratic National Party discusses their desires and a compromise is made.  What is your opinion on Super Delegates.  Do you think they should be gotten rid of and only the delegates per state primaries and caucuses should vote or not. If you believe Super Delegate are ok, do you think they should wait until the convention to declare who they are supporting or not?

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

      I think that this concept should be done away with as elitist and undemocratic. The people should be in charge and not the machine.

      1. Johnny James A profile image80
        Johnny James Aposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        I was never a fan of the Super-delegate myself.  Even, if the Super-delegates are kept I think the process of stating one's allegiance early in the game is not good.  One would hope people would vote their conscious, however, it is human nature to vote for the front runner and it is looks like someone have a 400 delegate lead after the first couple primaries it can change people's perceptions.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      The whole idea of an independent entity who can decide an outcome would seem unconstitutional as applied to free elections. But so does the idea of the two party system as it has a mob like mentality deciding who can run and be elected.

      "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."  Thomas Jefferson