It appears that the concept will continue….
But the superdelegates may NOT be able to vote in the first round of the 2020 Presidential nomination choice….
The compromise is in response to complaints mainly from the Sanders faction in the party, but has been a sore point for others who feel the group of politicians are an undemocratic part of the parties Presidential candidate selection process…
Democratic National Committee head Tom Perez supports the above listed second option over a firstb option that would have different classes of superdelegates …That option didn’t make the cut previously….
The second option, which Perez supports and which appears far more likely to be enacted, would allow superdelegates to continue to exist, but they couldn’t vote during the first round of the presidential roll-call vote. They could, however, vote during the second round or any subsequent roll call, and they would still be permitted to support any candidate they wanted.
Perez believes this approach ensures that “we have an inclusive party, transparent process, democratic principles, and empowers the grass roots,” a DNC official said.
And that’s what set the House members off, because none of them believes there will be any more than one roll-call vote for the nominee.
In their view, that means elected Democratic officials — who have been put into office by hundreds of thousands or even millions of constituents — won’t play a role in nominating their party’s presidential candidate.
“I believe this decision, if they go forward, is going to do terrible damage to party harmony,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who raised his objections with Perez during Tuesday’s dinner. “It disenfranchises the elected leadership of the party. The last time we allowed that to happen was 1972, and we had the worst landslide in our history.”
“I believe that elected officials across the country — Congress and governors — I believe they provide a ballast for the party that we very much need,” Connolly added. “With all due respect to somebody who thinks we don’t need it, when we haven’t had it, Democrats have had disastrous results.”
“I think this is absolutely an insult to us,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). “We’re no better than anybody else, but we stand for election. That has to mean something, that has to stand for something. That’s a lot of baloney.”
In an interview, Pascrell said that he told the same thing to Perez during Tuesday night’s closed-door dinner but didn’t like Perez’s retort.
“I didn’t really get a response, just more of an explanation,” Pascrell said. “I got the impression that this is pretty much a done deal with the options they had come up with, which I find difficult to handle.”
DNC officials said they plan to hold further discussions with members over this issue, although there may not be room for a deal that will satisfy lawmakers….
In a slap @Bernie Sanders,the DNC has adopted a rule that Democratic Presidential candidates must be a “member “
of the Democratic Party ,accept the nomination of the Democratic Party ,and agree to run and “serve” as a Democrat.
Lots of questions though.
What does it mean to be a”member?”Paying dues to the DNC?In S.C. ,for instance ,there is no registration by party.
How could the DNC enforce these edicts?I mean how can one be forced to “serve” as a Democrat?Indeed, what desv that even mean?
As I said,sounds like a purposeful slap @Bernie.
Yeah I don’t see how that could be enforced.
I think the Republicans tried something like this in past contests to keep gadflys like Alan Keyes out of the debates.
Sanders could just say he plans to serve as a Democrat if elected, even though he is now an independent Senator.
States make up their own rules as far as the Presidential primary process goes. They can decide to prohibit who has access to the ballot for particular electoral contests, especially the Presidential nomination process. And, it is different across the Country.
For example, New Hampshire requires, if I recall correctly, that those seeking Presidential ballot access be a registered Democrat, and Sanders could have been challenged in the 2016 primary and denied access to that State’s primary ballot. The Clinton campaign chose not to do so for obvious reasons.
I have no problem requiring some sort of process to keep non-Democrats from running in the Democratic primary. Just as I think people who are not registered Democrats should vote in the Democratic primary.
But, once again, that is up to the individual states. In California you must be a declared Democrat to receive a Democratic ballot to vote for a Presidential candidate. In Illinois, once again if I recall correctly, all you have to do is ask for a ballot (Republican or Democrat) when you enter the polling place and can move back and forth between parties in each election.
Of course California’s jungle primary allows me to vote for a Republican in one race and a Democrat in the next. But, not for President.
South Carolina has no registration by party.
You are simply asked in which party’s primary you wish to vote in .Once you vote in the primary however, you can’t vote in the other party’s primary for the same office(s) during that cycle,ie, a runoff.
If there was a special primary for an office ,not voted on in the original primary ,you could switch party preference for that race if you so desired.
Amusingly,however, I often hear people call themselves a “ registered Republican “ or a “ registered Democrat.”
Yes in Missouri our system is pretty much the same. Only we do not have runoffs. Considering newly resigned Governor Eric Greitens won his party primary with 34% of the vote in 2016 and in 2012 Todd “legitimate rape” Akin won the Senate primary with a similar plurality– Missouri Republicans may be interested in adopting a runoff system now though.
Rumor is that our new Governor Mike Parson–who has been compared to Mike Pence much as Greitens was to Trump–will have several Republican challengers if he seeks election in his own right in 2020.
Link Jack?
And this sounds just about what I have been saying here…
Ok….
I found the link…
Post coming…
The Hill
Establishment Democrats always cite 1972 as a reason to keep delegates away from direct popular selection, but 1972 (after the McGovern Commission’s report) was a reaction to the chaos of 1968, when Humphrey apparently won the nomination despite the popular vote among Democrats for Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy.
An extreme recent example from recent times (and the kind of thing that enrages Sanders supporters) is Rhode Island’s Democratic primary of 2016.
After trailing Hillary Clinton in the polls, Bernie Sanders suddenly leapt forward to sweep Rhode Island’s voting rank-&-file Democrats 54.7% to Clinton’s 43.1% (67,000 to 53,000), which entitled him to 13 of the 24 delegates up for direct election (Clinton got 11).
But all 9 officeholding Democrats entitled to superdelegate votes* went for Clinton, tipping the balance from 13-11 to 13-20.
* The 3 DNC members from RI plus U.S. Sens Reed & Whitehouse, Cong. Cicilline & Langevin, RI House Speaker Nick Mattiello and State Sen Pres. Teresa Paiva-Weed
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island_Democratic_presidential_primary,_2016#Results
In the end though?
The super d’s go with the consensus choice
I doubt the super d’s are going anywhere
I don’t Understand your point. You say superdelegates will go with the consensus choice. So, why have them?
Because they have been part of the process for decades and are there for a situation that has thankfully NEVER occurred….
Update…
It appears that DNC head Perez will push for a rule change that superdelegates do NOT vote on the first ballot vote for the parties nominee for President….
Under Perez’s proposal, which appears to have the backing of a majority of DNC members, superdelegates would continue to exist but be barred from voting during the first round of the presidential roll-call vote. They could vote during the second round or any subsequent roll call, and superdelegates would still be permitted to support any candidate they want. Superdelegates would also be allowed to vote on any rules or platform issues….
More…
it would be highly unprecedented in modern days if any roll call vote were to ever go to a second ballot.
So, this would be a significant change for the Democrats and a victory for those who felt that Bernie Sanders was done wrong.
The superdelegates would in on everything else….
But yes…This COULD be a big change…
It doesn’t get voted on offically until August I believe …Stay tuned…
Personally?
I don’t a shit what Sanders people feel…
That guy isn’t a Democrat….
It may not matter what Sen. Sanders wants, but 80-95% of his supporters were Democrats.
Would that there were a strong democratic socialist party in the U.S. that could participate in choosing Presidents, but there hasn’t been one in nearly a century.
I don’t think Sanders is gonna try
Do anything like that at his age….
Trying to Kojack the Democrats is easlier…
Kojack was Telly Savalas. It is not a verb that anyone other than you uses. You might have intended to use the word hijack, but I am sending you this because you made the same mistake before.
No mistake
But i’ll Refrain from using the term….
Onec Kojaked, all Democrats will be required to have shaved heads and be sucking on a lollipop at all times.
Update on a story that will be big in the weekend political media but was decided a while ago….
In a bow to the bernie Sanders wing of the party….
Superdelegates will NOT be able to vote for the Presidential nomiee on the first go-around…
The Democratic nominee has been chosen on the first ballot go-around for the last almost 50 years….
DNC head Tom Perez get props for letting the Sanders people have something that probably doesn’t mean anything….