DNC “Unity Commission” to look at reforms to nomination process for 2020

[Rookie Yinzer]

The Democratic nominee needed 2,382 delegates to win. Hillary had 2,205 pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. Superdelegates created a sense of inevitability since Hillary started with hundreds of superdelegates before Iowa and the media included them in her totals despite the DNC saying not to. It was blamed for depressing turnout because of inevitability. And we'll never know the complete popular vote of the 2016 Democratic primaries because caucuses weren't required to release them.

If the superdelegates of states Bernie won had been required to vote like the voters of their states, things might have been different. And if caucuses, where Bernie did well, were required to release raw voter data, the popular vote may have been different. Maybe. Maybe not. But the reforms will hopefully level the playing field, even just a little.

Whether superdelegates were proportional, whether superdelegates were required to vote with their states, or whether they were eliminated altogether, Hillary Clinton would have won. The notion that she won solely because of them has been debunked numerous times.

I profoundly disagree with the notion that it depressed turnout. Sanders upset her in Michigan, and had her running scared in May running to WV, KY, and IN because he was keeping it close and providing terrible optics for the campaign of the presumptive nominee still losing primaries weeks before the convention.

I also find it interesting how there is no acknowledgment of how undemocratic caucuses are and how they favored the Sanders campaign. In several states that held both caucuses and primaries, Bernie performed well in the low turnout caucuses while Hillary beat him soundly in primaries where there was higher participation, and voters could vote Hillary in the privacy of a voting booth without being shouted down by Sanders supporters. Telling that Clinton won the Washington Primary which had three times as many voters as the caucus.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/washington-primary-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/484313/

 

[Rookie Yinzer]

Hillary needed 2,382 delegates to win. She had 2,205 pledged. Superdelegates played a role somehow.

There were 4,051 pledged delegates. 2,205 is more than a majority of these delegates. If superdelegates were not used in the Democratic primary she would only need 2,026 bound delegates to win. She surpassed that and would have won the primary regardless.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Hillary needed 2,382 delegates to win. She had 2,205 pledged. Superdelegates played a role somehow.

There were 4,051 pledged delegates. 2,205 is a majority of these delegates. If superdelegates were not used in the Democratic primary she would only need 2,026 bound delegates to win. She surpassed that and would have won the primary regardless.

But the problem is they were used in the primary and that's how she won. She didn't win from pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. That's the issue and that's why there's a Unity Commission. And that's why her own VP nominee is against superdelegates.

Either way, I agree that their role should be reduced but not eliminated totally. The last thing I want is a Trump-like figure hijacking our party by winning a plurality of the vote, because fifty other candidates who can't take a hint cannibalize the opposition vote.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Hillary needed 2,382 delegates to win. She had 2,205 pledged. Superdelegates played a role somehow.

There were 4,051 pledged delegates. 2,205 is a majority of these delegates. If superdelegates were not used in the Democratic primary she would only need 2,026 bound delegates to win. She surpassed that and would have won the primary regardless.

But the problem is they were used in the primary and that's how she won. She didn't win from pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. That's the issue and that's why there's a Unity Commission. And that's why her own VP nominee is against superdelegates.

Either way, I agree that their role should be reduced but not eliminated totally. The last thing I want is a Trump-like figure hijacking our party by winning a plurality of the vote, because fifty other candidates who can't take a hint cannibalize the opposition vote.

I hope I didn't seem rude or like I was arguing. This kind of debate is important, and otherwise I mostly agree with everything you write here on the forums.

No, not at all!

[Rookie Yinzer]

What I want is no different than a contested convention. Deciding not to nominate a fringe candidate who cobbled together 35-40 percent of the electorate because they stood out in a crowded field is not undermining democracy or overturning the will of the people. More people voted against said candidate, and there should be something in place to ensure the most electable candidate is put forth.

If 2016 had a field of progressives and one blue dog Democrat (anti-choice/thinks SSM should be left up to the states), with said blue dog Democrat "winning" with 36.5 percent of the vote by let's say winning all the Southern primaries and nothing more, you would be fine with this candidate receiving the nomination even though said person clearly isn't the direction the majority of the party want to go in? I doubt that.