Superdelegates (and ELECTORAL COLLEGE) MUST GO. DEMOCRACY IN U.S. ELECTIONS.

[Jude Iam]

SHEEEESH: 716 of these unelected "super delegates" = 5 1/2 MILLION voters.
U.S. elections need redoing from EVERY angle.
long way to go to get to democracy. best, jude

The Democratic Party has an outrageously undemocratic way of selecting our presidential candidates. Sign the petition to tell the DNC: Eliminate "superdelegates" for all future primaries!Add your name!

It’s common sense: Elections should go to whichever candidate gets the most votes.
But in the Democratic Party’s primary system, that’s not how it works. Candidates also need to win a lot of “superdelegates” – unaccountable party insiders that make up almost one-fifth of the “delegates” up for grabs in the primary.
So even if voters chose one candidate in a close primary race for president, these superdelegates could overrule the people if it doesn’t go their way.
It doesn’t matter if you’re supporting Bernie or Hillary this primary season. The superdelegate system is extremely undemocratic and must be eliminated moving forward.
Tell the DNC: Bring back democracy to the Democratic primary process and eliminate the superdelegate system for all future primaries!
Superdelegates were originally created after party bigwigs were furious that a grassroots anti-war candidate, George McGovern beat the establishment’s choice for the primary in 1972.
So the Democratic Party leadership made a plan – they created superdelegates in the 80s so that if a grassroots-powered candidate got close to winning the primary, insiders could overrule the people.
This is seriously outrageous for a Democratic Party that says our country succeeds when “everyone plays by the same rules.”
Tell the DNC: End the superdelegate system next election cycle. Let the Democratic candidate be elected by and for the people!
“Pledged Delegates” are selected to represent the will of the voters at the Democratic Party’s primary convention. In a democratic system, they alone would determine the party's nominee.
But the 716 unelected, “superdelegates” make up 15% of delegates in the primary – that’s about same as 5.5 million ordinary voters in Texas, Florida, Ohio, and Michigan!
Superdelegates like DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz shouldn’t have more of a say than you or me just because she’s a party insider. And superdelegates should NOT be able to overrule the will of the voters.
Too much is at stake in our country to have our voices overruled by a minority of party elites in our elections.
Whether you want Hillary or Bernie to win the nomination, we should end the superdelegate system for every election in the future – and make sure the Democratic Party represents democratic values.
Tell the DNC: All our votes are equal – Eliminate the superdelegate system and let the voters decide our elections!
Thanks for taking action, David Segal Executive Director

[theindependenteye]

>>>Elections should go to whichever candidate gets the most votes.
>>>But in the Democratic Party’s primary system, that’s not how it works. ...
>>>Tell the DNC: Bring back democracy to the Democratic primary process and eliminate the superdelegate system for all future primaries! ...
>>>Superdelegates were originally created after party bigwigs were furious that a grassroots anti-war candidate, George McGovern beat the establishment’s choice for the primary in 1972. ...

Several thoughts on this. First, McGovern was wasted in the general election (despite my voting for him), so the "party bigwigs" may have had a point. (Rules were in fact changed in the 80s, after Carter too was squashed.)

Most of these delegates were in fact elected—members of the Senate, the House, Governors, past Presidents, members of the DNC (elected by other state party members)—though not selected in the primaries. It seems to me that they could validly be considered as serving the interests of the party perhaps more than an independent voter in a primary, who nevertheless will be choosing about 80% of the delegates. To lump all those delegates under the pejorative term "party bigwigs" suggests that any Democrat who successfully gets elected or supports the interest of the party is somehow corrupt, or at least should have no more say in who's nominated than a first-time voter. I realize that's a popular assumption, but I don't buy it.

And the current race is peculiar in this regard: For some time, I've heard the complaint from Sanders supporters that the superdelegates might hand the nomination to Clinton even if Sanders won the popular vote. Now, as it appears Clinton is more likely to win the pledged-delegate race as well as the overall vote, it appears that Sanders is placing his hopes on support by the superdelegates, claiming he's more electable. Which is it to be?

In any case, the time to debate this, IMO, is after an election, not during a vitriolic campaign, when it undermines an acceptance of the entire validity of the outcome and turns off potential voters. Which, I'm quite certain, is the only hope for the Republicans.

Cheers—
Conrad