There is a push by the Berners to get rid of the SDs.
Tulsi Gabbard has a petition get rid of them
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/06/12/rep-tulsi-gabbard-posts-petition-to-eliminate-superdelegates/21393846/
In response some Hillary supporters have put forward a petition to keep the SDs.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/187/688/621/keep-our-democratic-super-delegate-process/?taf_id=26384665&cid=twitter#
I have signed this petition and urge Hillary supporters and all concerned Democrats to do the same.
The Democratic nomination process is not rigged. There is no obvious problem in need of correction.
The fact is that Hillary did not win because of the SDs. She won by receiving almost 4 million more votes and 300 more pledged delegates.
She has gotten the nomination: that's the definition of fair and democratic.
She is not a weak nominee as unlike then candidate Obama in 2008 and many other past Dem nominees she actually got not just a plurality but an absolute majority of pledged delegates-ie, unlike Obama and others, she got there without the SDs.
True, some may even argue that for this reason we should get rid of the SDs in the future just to take away the confusion.
I don't find that a very compelling reason. Any confusion was basically willful as Bernie tried to somehow run against the SDs while spending the last 2 months talking about flipping them.
I don't think those who muddy up the waters for political reasons should be rewarded.
And while the SDs weren't needed, I agree with Jamelle Bouie that the Dem process is a very nice mix of Majoritarian and nonMajoriatarian elements.
"The Process Worked."
"The Democratic primaries weren’t rigged. Despite their flaws, they produced a nominee with wide support across the party."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/the_democratic_nomination_process_is_fine.html
For a better perspective on the SDs, some historical perspective is in order.
1. Bernie Sanders' manager, Tad Devine, was a major pioneer of the process in 1984 when he supported the Establishment candidate that year Walter Mondale over outsider Garry Hart.
So he supported the Hillary Clinton of that year against that year's Bernie Sanders.
Except, Mondale was no Hillary Clinton. He edged out Hart by just 2 points at 38-36 while Jesse Jackson got another 20 percent. So the winner that year got just 38 percent of the Democratic party vote contrasted with Hillary this year who got 55 percent.
2. In 1988, Jesse Jackson who was the outsider candidate that year-to the Establishment candidate of Michael Dukakis-actually pushed and got changes in the SD process: he got an increase.
So it's far from obvious that SDs disenfranchise voters. Jackson so an increase of SDs as actually enfranchising them.
Again, we have a Majoritarian process but it's not 100 percent so, but more like 75 to 80 percent. That in my view-and the view of Jesse Jackson and others-is the optimum mix.
Tulsi Gabbard has a petition get rid of them
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/06/12/rep-tulsi-gabbard-posts-petition-to-eliminate-superdelegates/21393846/
In response some Hillary supporters have put forward a petition to keep the SDs.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/187/688/621/keep-our-democratic-super-delegate-process/?taf_id=26384665&cid=twitter#
I have signed this petition and urge Hillary supporters and all concerned Democrats to do the same.
The Democratic nomination process is not rigged. There is no obvious problem in need of correction.
The fact is that Hillary did not win because of the SDs. She won by receiving almost 4 million more votes and 300 more pledged delegates.
She has gotten the nomination: that's the definition of fair and democratic.
She is not a weak nominee as unlike then candidate Obama in 2008 and many other past Dem nominees she actually got not just a plurality but an absolute majority of pledged delegates-ie, unlike Obama and others, she got there without the SDs.
True, some may even argue that for this reason we should get rid of the SDs in the future just to take away the confusion.
I don't find that a very compelling reason. Any confusion was basically willful as Bernie tried to somehow run against the SDs while spending the last 2 months talking about flipping them.
I don't think those who muddy up the waters for political reasons should be rewarded.
And while the SDs weren't needed, I agree with Jamelle Bouie that the Dem process is a very nice mix of Majoritarian and nonMajoriatarian elements.
"The Process Worked."
"The Democratic primaries weren’t rigged. Despite their flaws, they produced a nominee with wide support across the party."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/the_democratic_nomination_process_is_fine.html
For a better perspective on the SDs, some historical perspective is in order.
1. Bernie Sanders' manager, Tad Devine, was a major pioneer of the process in 1984 when he supported the Establishment candidate that year Walter Mondale over outsider Garry Hart.
So he supported the Hillary Clinton of that year against that year's Bernie Sanders.
Except, Mondale was no Hillary Clinton. He edged out Hart by just 2 points at 38-36 while Jesse Jackson got another 20 percent. So the winner that year got just 38 percent of the Democratic party vote contrasted with Hillary this year who got 55 percent.
2. In 1988, Jesse Jackson who was the outsider candidate that year-to the Establishment candidate of Michael Dukakis-actually pushed and got changes in the SD process: he got an increase.
So it's far from obvious that SDs disenfranchise voters. Jackson so an increase of SDs as actually enfranchising them.
Again, we have a Majoritarian process but it's not 100 percent so, but more like 75 to 80 percent. That in my view-and the view of Jesse Jackson and others-is the optimum mix.
No comments:
Post a Comment