California Democrats call for elimination of superdelegates and caucuses

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Terrible news. I could do away with caucuses (which are fairly useless imo), but otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Terrible news. I could do away with caucuses (which are fairly useless imo), but otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

What an awful and logically indefensible opinion.

Well some things are certainly wrong with the way presidential nominees are selected. Superdelegates aren't one of them.
I would spend large amounts of money upgrading voting machines nationwide, I would allow the possibility of mail voting, I would institute automatic voter registration nationwide. I just don't see superdelegates as a problem in themselves.
Getting rid of superdelegates is just a feel good move that won't truly make our democracy better. Much more important things can be done to improve our political system.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Terrible news. I could do away with caucuses (which are fairly useless imo), but otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

What an awful and logically indefensible opinion.

Well some things are certainly wrong with the way presidential nominees are selected. Superdelegates aren't one of them.
I would spend large amounts of money upgrading voting machines nationwide, I would allow the possibility of mail voting, I would institute automatic voter registration nationwide. I just don't see superdelegates as a problem in themselves.
Getting rid of superdelegates is just a feel good move that won't truly make our democracy better. Much more important things can be done to improve our political system.

And those super-delegates are the one obstacle preventing the Democratic Party from nominating its own version of Donald Trump. 

Well I will say that superdelegates impart some stability to the Democrats.  Ditching them just because they could theoretically hijack the process while simultaneously losing the benefits is dumb. It's never happened too!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This isn't the 60s. Superdelegates will never have the balls to overturn the will of the people, unless the primary is a virtual tie. So having them accomplishes nothing and simply breeds resentment about a "rigged process" every cycle. If PLEOs don't want to have to run for delegate slots, then just allocate them based off the popular vote. Easy.

Just look at the GOP. They could easily unbind their delegates if they wanted to and ditch Trump. But they won't, because they fear overturning the will of the voters would destroy their party. The same goes for the Democratic side, so superdelegates serve no purpose. Even in a scenario where superdelegates don't exist and Dems had the balls to do it, they could just unbind the delegates like some in the GOP are considering doing. There's no functional difference in having superdelegates and not having them, unless you enjoy the constant bitching about it every primary cycle. Do you really think 99.9% of people will care whether the will of the people was overturned by superdelegates or if the will of the people was overturned by the Rules Committee unbinding the delegates? The only part that will matter is "will of people overturned."

The clueless people (i.e some Bernie supporters, etc)  would find something else to complain about, methinks. It's not worth it placating them in this instance.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This isn't the 60s. Superdelegates will never have the balls to overturn the will of the people, unless the primary is a virtual tie. So having them accomplishes nothing and simply breeds resentment about a "rigged process" every cycle. If PLEOs don't want to have to run for delegate slots, then just allocate them based off the popular vote. Easy.

Just look at the GOP. They could easily unbind their delegates if they wanted to and ditch Trump. But they won't, because they fear overturning the will of the voters would destroy their party. The same goes for the Democratic side, so superdelegates serve no purpose. Even in a scenario where superdelegates don't exist and Dems had the balls to do it, they could just unbind the delegates like some in the GOP are considering doing. There's no functional difference in having superdelegates and not having them, unless you enjoy the constant bitching about it every primary cycle. Do you really think 99.9% of people will care whether the will of the people was overturned by superdelegates or if the will of the people was overturned by the Rules Committee unbinding the delegates? The only part that will matter is "will of people overturned."

The clueless people (i.e some Bernie supporters, etc)  would find something else to complain about, methinks. It's not worth it placating them in this instance.

It's not just a Bernie thing though. There was much gnashing of teeth on all sides about them in 2008 as well.

Oh, I agree. But it's better for people to stop complaining about superdelegates than to get rid of them. It's not truly  proven that superdelegates are to blame for everything they are blamed for... It's an incorrect opinion held by the public, kind of like how some people think artificial colors in food is bad for some reason.
If people weren't complaining about superdelegates they would be complaining about something else.