Democrats Voted To Strip Power From Superdelegates

[Jason]

 

[SaysWho?]

"Except in the unlikely event of a contested convention" seems like a pretty good compromise considering its rarity.

 

This is a good move.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

@RedSoxFan9 had a better thread title for this.

[Massdriver]

They should be doing the opposite. Voters should have little to no say in the party's nominee. 

[RedSoxFan9]

peak neoliberalism 

[outsida]

1 hour ago, Massdriver said:

They should be doing the opposite. Voters should have little to no say in the party's nominee. 

Caucuses should be eliminated. 

[SuperSpreader]

with this move: 

 

Announcing, candidate Corey Booker!!!!

 

if they don't do it:

 

Announcing, candidate Corey Booker!!!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I don't give a shit about the continued digs at Bernie, but this is interesting perspective

[CitizenVectron]

17 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I don't give a shit about the continued digs at Bernie, but this is interesting perspective

 

If you're going to let the nominee be chosen by party members, then a straight-up popular vote is the way to go. Just do it all at once nation-wide following an inner-party campaign. I think that that is a mistake (allowing people to choose their leader willy-nilly), but if you're going to allow it then that is what should be done, not this nonsense of stretching it out over months and giving more weight to small states.

[Jason]

1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

If you're going to let the nominee be chosen by party members, then a straight-up popular vote is the way to go. Just do it all at once nation-wide following an inner-party campaign. I think that that is a mistake (allowing people to choose their leader willy-nilly), but if you're going to allow it then that is what should be done, not this nonsense of stretching it out over months and giving more weight to small states.

 

I do think there's something to be said for letting the initial contests being in a few small states with relatively cheap media markets. But it definitely shouldn't be strung out over months, Iowa/NH/Ohio should go and then the rest of the country should go.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Given the disproportionate strength smaller States have in our presidential election process, there is zero reason to not give them a disproportionate influence in electing the presidential candidate. Until our system changes, you need to work the system and not just wish for an ideal.

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Given the disproportionate strength smaller States have in our presidential election process

 

Largely because of letting them go early in the primary process and then incessantly talk about the "momentum" those states give candidats. If we had a euro-style of no campaigning at all until 30 days before the election is called and then everyone goes at once, they would not get nearly the outsized weight the currently do.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

57 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Largely because of letting them go early in the primary process and then incessantly talk about the "momentum" those states give candidats. If we had a euro-style of no campaigning at all until 30 days before the election is called and then everyone goes at once, they would not get nearly the outsized weight the currently do.

I was talking in the general election tho. 

[Jason]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I was talking in the general election tho. 

 

That's more about the cap on the number of Representatives though. The Senate will always be a sort of de facto gerrymander until we totally overhaul it, but simply increasing the number of Reps would do a lot to get rid of the distorting effect that has on turnout.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

12 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

That's more about the cap on the number of Representatives though. The Senate will always be a sort of de facto gerrymander until we totally overhaul it, but simply increasing the number of Reps would do a lot to get rid of the distorting effect that has on turnout.

I've been preaching this for years. I fully agree. The Senate needs reduced powers, and more given to the house. Same for the president vis a vi the house. 

 

That said, until you can change the system, game the system.

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I've been preaching this for years. I fully agree. The Senate needs reduced powers, and more given to the house. Same for the president vis a vi the house. 

 

That said, until you can change the system, game the system.

 

I can't really say I think I know what specifically needed to be changed to make it work, but it sure does seem like the 17th Amendment changing the Senate to popular state-by-state vote without changing anything else about the Senate really broke the Senate.