Democrats ponder eliminating superdelegates from nomination framework

A 21-member committee established by Democrats in the wake of the party’s disastrous showing in the 2016 presidential election is weighing the elimination of unpledged delegates to its national convention.

Also known as a “superdelegate,” the Democratic Party’s Unity Reform Commission has recommended a proposal to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee to reduce the number of superdelegates, if not eliminate the classification of delegates altogether.

Formed in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election by Hillary Clinton and her chief primary rival Bernie Sanders, the commission’s purpose was to examine and put forward motions to improve the DNC’s nomination framework.

Unlike “pledged” delegates who are bound to support a primary or caucus winner in a state, approximately 700 superdelegates have license to support any candidate and are able to cast primary or caucus ballots according to the party’s current bylaws.

At the moment, committee members’ views vary, but tend to lean toward retaining some superdelegates:

“‘Reduce’ covers ‘elimination,'” said committee member Leah Daughtry. “It would give us enough elbow room, enough latitude, to get to zero — if that’s what we want to get to.”

“I think we’re leaving it open. We’re saying ‘reduce or eliminate,'” said James Roosevelt III, who serves as commission co-chair. “We’re gonna reduce, but we just don’t know how far we’re going.”

“I’m worried that we’re just going way too far on this before we decide what in fact we’re going to do,” said DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee member Harold Ickes.

Commenting further on recommendations to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, DNC chairman Tom Perez said his party is determined to “improve the democratic (nomination) process” before the 2020 election.


An enduring symbol of the corruption of the Clintons, this struggle over the future of superdelegates as a mechanism to determine the party’s nominee is being waged by party loyalists to retain power in the hands of the influential.

A most underhanded device, the mere fact the DNC is weighing the preservation in any way of an institutionally-biased system to determine the party’s nominee signals the party’s determination to fix future primary elections and nominations.

Obsessed with finding an avenue to hand Hillary Clinton the nomination, Clinton, her husband, and their die-hard supporters were in need of a fool-proof instrument to prevent challengers in 2016.  Aware of Hillary’s inherent weaknesses and vowing not to see a repeat of the 2008 disaster against Barack Obama, the power couple quietly negotiated support from superdelegates prior to the first caucus, revealing the entire nomination system was a sham all along.

Despite the DNC’s best effort to create the appearance of an honest process, former DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and several top party officials were forced to resign in disgrace when the charade was exposed before Clinton was crowned at the July convention.

Falling short of the required 2,383 delegates required by 178, had Clinton not had the support of superdelegates, she would have never received the nomination.

On the one hand, the superdelegate system could be described as a security device to prevent an unscrupulous candidate from obtaining the nomination, but not a word supporting this theory from party officials has been uttered.

In contrast, advocates of scrapping the system, most originating among the progressive wing of the party, are responding in anger over the DNC’s treatment of Bernie Sanders, who slogged within the narrow margins of honest campaigning and fundraising, only to slowly realize his party was waging an insurgent war against him.

Sanders’ experience spawned a lawsuit and further embarrassed the party, but with Clinton acolytes at the helm, even litigation provided little solace as a party attorney argued in court the DNC was under no obligation to facilitate a fair nomination process.

The fact debate persists over a thoroughly dishonest mechanism to rig the nomination demonstrates the DNC learned absolutely nothing from the debacle it suffered in 2016.

Just as the DNC’s 2016 nomination framework was a sham, so is this committee.


[AP] [BuzzFeed] [Photo courtesy FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images via Breitbart]