Half of Hillary's delegates are not earned, DNC corruption

[JimBowie1958]

It was pretty damn funny that Bernie won New Hampshire by a wide margin and the Hildabeast walks away with more delegates.

That's democracy in action.

Except that she didn't. As no Super Delegate she 'won' in New Hampshire has cast their vote. And can change it at any time.

Yes she did. Hillary walked away with more committed delegates from New Hampshire than Bernie. The system is corrupt.

Actually Hillary got the same number of delegates, counting Super delegates as well. Since Bernie won like 70% of the vote, he should have gotten far more than Hillary did.

But the Hillary camp has bought the DNC and they will continue to screw Sanders over like the RN?C screwed Gingrich over in 2012 and are trying to hoze Trump and Cruz this election.

Rep Dingell in Michigan represents a state district that is getting totally hammered by free trade. And Hillary Clinton is in favor of the TPP and more free trade. So one might think that Dingell would support Sanders. No, she supports Hillary. Why? BECAUSE THE DEMOCRAT ESTABLISHMENT AND ITS INTERESTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT TO HER THAN THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN. The same is true of Rubio and similar cretins in the GOP Establishment.

What is needed is the complete purging of the establishment from top to bottom in BOTH parties.

 

[rdean]

The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.

The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.

Why are you commenting on something that doesn't concern you.
As a super delegate, you can change your mind any time. Historically, super delegates have gone along with the will of the base of the Democratic Party. Which is what they will do this time.

But the Republicans are conspiring to thwart the will of their voters. That is what you should be concerned with. And they are doing it very publicly showing the world they squat on the GOP base.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why are you commenting on something that doesn't concern you.

Who the hell are you to tell him it is none of his business?

As a super delegate, you can change your mind any time. Historically, super delegates have gone along with the will of the base of the Democratic Party. Which is what they will do this time.

But THIS TIME they are jumping into the campaign early trying to make Hillary look inevitable and throw the campaign to her.

Super delegates should be required to keep their traps shut publicly and not endorse candidates publicly.

But the Republicans are conspiring to thwart the will of their voters. That is what you should be concerned with. And they are doing it very publicly showing the world they squat on the GOP base.

Lol, but not with Super delegates, Sherlock.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Most of "those" delegates can change, like they did to Obama in the '08 primary. If Bernie pulled out to a sizable lead in regular delegates many would flip to him. If Bernie leads in regular voter delegates going into the convention and they deny him the nomination then there will be a real reason for protest.

This hasn't happened yet and likely won't so the subverting the will of the people charges are a little premature.

What I do see as biased and wrong is the much of the media reporting the delegate count with the super delegates included. This makes it appear Hillary has much more of a lead than she really does. I would argue there is some media bias there.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Hillary is well ahead in pledged delegates, hence the superdelegates will mean nothing.

And most Democrats don't like the idea of superdelegates. We're just acting like grownups about changing the process, instead of screaming conspiracy theories.

So what exactly are you doing to put a stop to this injustice?

 

[Slave2the$]

 

[Skylar]

Your image is way, way old. Clinton currently has 668 pleged delegates to Bernies 459.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Also Sanders won Maine tonight making the total delegates picked up this weekend 68 for Sanders and 66 for Clinton. Ahead of expectations for Sanders but he still is behind. Michigan is going to be very important for both candidates, especially Sanders as he needs a win to keep his chances realistic.

 

[Freewill]

The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.

The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.

Nope. Hilary leads in regular delegates by a pretty wide margin. And the Super Delegates always side with the winner of the regular delegates.

Worse for your 'subverting democracy' horseshit, not a single Super Delegate has cast a single vote for any candidate.

Worse still, you know all of this.

Isn't that just a tad bit disingenuous to say that no Super Delegate has cast a single vote? NO delegates have cast a single vote. The super delegates can vote for whomever they wish, you know that. The pledged delegates must vote by the primary vote, you know that. If there is no nomination the first round then they can change their vote to whomever, you know that. It is a rigged system to allow the establishment to select the nominee. Certainly your come back will be they only represent 1/6th of the delegates but 1/6th is more then enough to sway almost any election, and you know that. And they know already whom most of the super delegates will vote.

 

[Freewill]

Also Sanders won Maine tonight making the total delegates picked up this weekend 68 for Sanders and 66 for Clinton. Ahead of expectations for Sanders but he still is behind. Michigan is going to be very important for both candidates, especially Sanders as he needs a win to keep his chances realistic.

Sanders is the side show for the main event, Mrs. Tuluza Clinton. He was never anything more then a pretend foil for Mrs Tuluza, whether he knew it or not. Just like the DNC screwed over Mrs Clinton now Sanders is feeling the burn.

 

[Skylar]

The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.

The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.

Nope. Hilary leads in regular delegates by a pretty wide margin. And the Super Delegates always side with the winner of the regular delegates.

Worse for your 'subverting democracy' horseshit, not a single Super Delegate has cast a single vote for any candidate.

Worse still, you know all of this.

Isn't that just a tad bit disingenuous to say that no Super Delegate has cast a single vote? NO delegates have cast a single vote.

Pledged delegates are committed to the candidate that won them.

Super Delegates can (and often have) changed their vote before the convention. In 2008 when Obama won the most pledged delegates, many of the super delegates that had expressed support for Hillary switched to Obama.

You know this. But really hope we don't. Making your argument profoundly disingenuous.

The super delegates can vote for whomever they wish, you know that. The pledged delegates must vote by the primary vote, you know that. If there is no nomination the first round then they can change their vote to whomever, you know that. It is a rigged system to allow the establishment to select the nominee. Certainly your come back will be they only represent 1/6th of the delegates but 1/6th is more then enough to sway almost any election, and you know that. And they know already whom most of the super delegates will vote.

Then show me an example of a Democratic candidate who didn't have the most pledged delegates getting the nomination because of Super Delegates.

If the 'system is rigged' as you claim, then it will be remarkably easy for you to do so. If you're offering us an intentionally disingenuous pile of rhetorical horseshit, you'll give us excuses for why you can't.

Gee....I wonder which its going to be.

 

[Freewill]

The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.

The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.

Nope. Hilary leads in regular delegates by a pretty wide margin. And the Super Delegates always side with the winner of the regular delegates.

Worse for your 'subverting democracy' horseshit, not a single Super Delegate has cast a single vote for any candidate.

Worse still, you know all of this.

Isn't that just a tad bit disingenuous to say that no Super Delegate has cast a single vote? NO delegates have cast a single vote.

Pledged delegates are committed to the candidate that won them.

Super Delegates can (and often have) changed their vote before the convention. In 2008 when Obama won the most pledged delegates, many of the super delegates that had expressed support for Hillary switched to Obama.

You know this. But really hope we don't. Making your argument profoundly disingenuous.

The super delegates can vote for whomever they wish, you know that. The pledged delegates must vote by the primary vote, you know that. If there is no nomination the first round then they can change their vote to whomever, you know that. It is a rigged system to allow the establishment to select the nominee. Certainly your come back will be they only represent 1/6th of the delegates but 1/6th is more then enough to sway almost any election, and you know that. And they know already whom most of the super delegates will vote.

Then show me an example of a Democratic candidate who didn't have the most pledged delegates getting the nomination because of Super Delegates.

If the 'system is rigged' as you claim, then it will be remarkably easy for you to do so. If you're offering us an intentionally disingenuous pile of rhetorical horseshit, you'll give us excuses for why you can't.

Gee....I wonder which its going to be.

Repeating back exactly what I posted then saying I said something else is truly low level. But you know that.

The Super delegates switching their votes for Obama isn't evidence enough?

Do you understand why there are super delegates? do you remember Humphrey?

Did you know that prior to Humphrey the party leadership elected the nominee, NOT the people. Then the democrats changed how they did it by letting the people vote on the nominee. When that did work out for winning election they came up with a hybrid system so the party can control who is nominated. Did the super delegates switching for Obama, was that based on the primary votes or the whim of the party?

Right now the delegates that are pledged are very close for Mrs. Clinton and Sanders. But throw in the pledged super delegates and Mrs. Clinton is way ahead.

Why else do you think that the DNC adopted super delegates? Just for fun?

 

[Skylar]

The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.

The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.

Nope. Hilary leads in regular delegates by a pretty wide margin. And the Super Delegates always side with the winner of the regular delegates.

Worse for your 'subverting democracy' horseshit, not a single Super Delegate has cast a single vote for any candidate.

Worse still, you know all of this.

Isn't that just a tad bit disingenuous to say that no Super Delegate has cast a single vote? NO delegates have cast a single vote.

Pledged delegates are committed to the candidate that won them.

Super Delegates can (and often have) changed their vote before the convention. In 2008 when Obama won the most pledged delegates, many of the super delegates that had expressed support for Hillary switched to Obama.

You know this. But really hope we don't. Making your argument profoundly disingenuous.

The super delegates can vote for whomever they wish, you know that. The pledged delegates must vote by the primary vote, you know that. If there is no nomination the first round then they can change their vote to whomever, you know that. It is a rigged system to allow the establishment to select the nominee. Certainly your come back will be they only represent 1/6th of the delegates but 1/6th is more then enough to sway almost any election, and you know that. And they know already whom most of the super delegates will vote.

Then show me an example of a Democratic candidate who didn't have the most pledged delegates getting the nomination because of Super Delegates.

If the 'system is rigged' as you claim, then it will be remarkably easy for you to do so. If you're offering us an intentionally disingenuous pile of rhetorical horseshit, you'll give us excuses for why you can't.

Gee....I wonder which its going to be.

Repeating back exactly what I posted then saying I said something else is truly low level. But you know that.

The Super delegates switching their votes for Obama isn't evidence enough?

Super Delegates switched to Obama when he won the most pledged delegates. You intentionally omitted that extraordinarily relevant part as your argument is a steaming pile of disingenuous horseshit.

And exactly as I predicated, when I ask you to show me an example of a Democratic candidate who didn't have the most pledged delegates getting the nomination because of Super Delegates.....

......you give me excuses why you can't. The reason is obvious: There is no such example. The Super Delegates have NEVER turned an nomination against the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Ever.

And what's worse, you *know* that. But you really hope we don't. So much for your 'rigged system' nonsense.

 

[WheelieAddict]

The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.

The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.

Nope. Hilary leads in regular delegates by a pretty wide margin. And the Super Delegates always side with the winner of the regular delegates.

Worse for your 'subverting democracy' horseshit, not a single Super Delegate has cast a single vote for any candidate.

Worse still, you know all of this.

Isn't that just a tad bit disingenuous to say that no Super Delegate has cast a single vote? NO delegates have cast a single vote.

Pledged delegates are committed to the candidate that won them.

Super Delegates can (and often have) changed their vote before the convention. In 2008 when Obama won the most pledged delegates, many of the super delegates that had expressed support for Hillary switched to Obama.

You know this. But really hope we don't. Making your argument profoundly disingenuous.

The super delegates can vote for whomever they wish, you know that. The pledged delegates must vote by the primary vote, you know that. If there is no nomination the first round then they can change their vote to whomever, you know that. It is a rigged system to allow the establishment to select the nominee. Certainly your come back will be they only represent 1/6th of the delegates but 1/6th is more then enough to sway almost any election, and you know that. And they know already whom most of the super delegates will vote.

Then show me an example of a Democratic candidate who didn't have the most pledged delegates getting the nomination because of Super Delegates.

If the 'system is rigged' as you claim, then it will be remarkably easy for you to do so. If you're offering us an intentionally disingenuous pile of rhetorical horseshit, you'll give us excuses for why you can't.

Gee....I wonder which its going to be.

Repeating back exactly what I posted then saying I said something else is truly low level. But you know that.

The Super delegates switching their votes for Obama isn't evidence enough?

Super Delegates switched to Obama when he won the most pledged delegates. You intentionally omitted that extraordinarily relevant part as your argument is a steaming pile of disingenuous horseshit.

And exactly as I predicated, when I ask you to show me an example of a Democratic candidate who didn't have the most pledged delegates getting the nomination because of Super Delegates.....

......you give me excuses why you can't. The reason is obvious: There is no such example. The Super Delegates have NEVER turned an nomination against the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Ever.

And what's worse, you *know* that. But you really hope we don't. So much for your 'rigged system' nonsense.

Correct. It's just partisan bullshit Freewill is very good at spewing.

The problem is that much of the media has been reporting the totals with the superdelegates included making it seem like Clinton has a huge lead. I think that is biased and unfair. They should report the voted delegates and then mention the superdelegates after. It shows media bias IMO. That is what Freewill should be pointing out if they were honest.

 

[oreo]

The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.

The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.

Democrat Super Delegates are going to go to the "real" Democrat in the race, not some candidate that looks like he belongs in a nursing home, that just changed his party status to run on the Democrat ticket. They're not stupid they want to win this election, and they aren't going to waste their super delegate vote on a looser.

I know Bernie Sanders is in his mid 70's but man he's in bad shape for that age. He looks like he's 95. I mean John McCain is older and he was tortured for 5 years and looks better than Sanders does. Sanders looks like a 100 miles of bad road.

 

[Freewill]

Nope. Hilary leads in regular delegates by a pretty wide margin. And the Super Delegates always side with the winner of the regular delegates.

Worse for your 'subverting democracy' horseshit, not a single Super Delegate has cast a single vote for any candidate.

Worse still, you know all of this.

Isn't that just a tad bit disingenuous to say that no Super Delegate has cast a single vote? NO delegates have cast a single vote.

Pledged delegates are committed to the candidate that won them.

Super Delegates can (and often have) changed their vote before the convention. In 2008 when Obama won the most pledged delegates, many of the super delegates that had expressed support for Hillary switched to Obama.

You know this. But really hope we don't. Making your argument profoundly disingenuous.

The super delegates can vote for whomever they wish, you know that. The pledged delegates must vote by the primary vote, you know that. If there is no nomination the first round then they can change their vote to whomever, you know that. It is a rigged system to allow the establishment to select the nominee. Certainly your come back will be they only represent 1/6th of the delegates but 1/6th is more then enough to sway almost any election, and you know that. And they know already whom most of the super delegates will vote.

Then show me an example of a Democratic candidate who didn't have the most pledged delegates getting the nomination because of Super Delegates.

If the 'system is rigged' as you claim, then it will be remarkably easy for you to do so. If you're offering us an intentionally disingenuous pile of rhetorical horseshit, you'll give us excuses for why you can't.

Gee....I wonder which its going to be.

Repeating back exactly what I posted then saying I said something else is truly low level. But you know that.

The Super delegates switching their votes for Obama isn't evidence enough?

Super Delegates switched to Obama when he won the most pledged delegates. You intentionally omitted that extraordinarily relevant part as your argument is a steaming pile of disingenuous horseshit.

And exactly as I predicated, when I ask you to show me an example of a Democratic candidate who didn't have the most pledged delegates getting the nomination because of Super Delegates.....

......you give me excuses why you can't. The reason is obvious: There is no such example. The Super Delegates have NEVER turned an nomination against the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Ever.

And what's worse, you *know* that. But you really hope we don't. So much for your 'rigged system' nonsense.

Correct. It's just partisan bullshit Freewill is very good at spewing.

The problem is that much of the media has been reporting the totals with the superdelegates included making it seem like Clinton has a huge lead. I think that is biased and unfair. They should report the voted delegates and then mention the superdelegates after. It shows media bias IMO. That is what Freewill should be pointing out if they were honest.

Honestly there is really something wrong with you people and your ability to reason. I said EXACTLY what you are saying. Wow are you people disingenuous. NOTHING I posted is false or incorrect. It is your side trying to argue that super delegates don't matter, which by your own words is false. It is really typical of the left to lie then accuse others of what they in fact are doing. Not really surprising when one looks at who is leading with in the super delegate vote count. What you are saying is unfair IS THE SYSTEM. Those being reported have already pledged to Clinton without a primary vote. They certainly can change their mind, as they did with Obama, but they certainly are having an effect on the election. How many lazy democrats are not voting because Mrs. Clinton looks like, and is, a forgone conclusion?

Now, what I said originally was that super delegates were put in place to allow party leadership to have a bigger say in the nomination. Are you saying that is wrong? If so then you really need to google and read about why the democrat party removed the tie to the primary vote. BTW the republican super delegates are pledged according to the primary vote, for at least the first round.

 

[Freewill]

The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.

The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.

Democrat Super Delegates are going to go to the "real" Democrat in the race, not some candidate that looks like he belongs in a nursing home, that just changed his party status to run on the Democrat ticket. They're not stupid they want to win this election, and they aren't going to waste their super delegate vote on a looser.

I know Bernie Sanders is in his mid 70's but man he's in bad shape for that age. He looks like he's 95. I mean John McCain is older and he was tortured for 5 years and looks better than Sanders does. Sanders looks like a 100 miles of bad road.

He is a punching bag for Mrs. Tuluza Clinton, nothing more.

 

[Freewill]

The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.

The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.

Nope. Hilary leads in regular delegates by a pretty wide margin. And the Super Delegates always side with the winner of the regular delegates.

Worse for your 'subverting democracy' horseshit, not a single Super Delegate has cast a single vote for any candidate.

Worse still, you know all of this.

Isn't that just a tad bit disingenuous to say that no Super Delegate has cast a single vote? NO delegates have cast a single vote.

Pledged delegates are committed to the candidate that won them.

Super Delegates can (and often have) changed their vote before the convention. In 2008 when Obama won the most pledged delegates, many of the super delegates that had expressed support for Hillary switched to Obama.

You know this. But really hope we don't. Making your argument profoundly disingenuous.

The super delegates can vote for whomever they wish, you know that. The pledged delegates must vote by the primary vote, you know that. If there is no nomination the first round then they can change their vote to whomever, you know that. It is a rigged system to allow the establishment to select the nominee. Certainly your come back will be they only represent 1/6th of the delegates but 1/6th is more then enough to sway almost any election, and you know that. And they know already whom most of the super delegates will vote.

Then show me an example of a Democratic candidate who didn't have the most pledged delegates getting the nomination because of Super Delegates.

If the 'system is rigged' as you claim, then it will be remarkably easy for you to do so. If you're offering us an intentionally disingenuous pile of rhetorical horseshit, you'll give us excuses for why you can't.

Gee....I wonder which its going to be.

Repeating back exactly what I posted then saying I said something else is truly low level. But you know that.

The Super delegates switching their votes for Obama isn't evidence enough?

Super Delegates switched to Obama when he won the most pledged delegates. You intentionally omitted that extraordinarily relevant part as your argument is a steaming pile of disingenuous horseshit.

And exactly as I predicated, when I ask you to show me an example of a Democratic candidate who didn't have the most pledged delegates getting the nomination because of Super Delegates.....

......you give me excuses why you can't. The reason is obvious: There is no such example. The Super Delegates have NEVER turned an nomination against the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Ever.

And what's worse, you *know* that. But you really hope we don't. So much for your 'rigged system' nonsense.

Well I guess you don't "know" as much as I gave you credit. If you think that the popular vote elects the nominee you are delusional. DELEGATES decide, period. They are still arguing who won the popular vote in 2008, that is why it was said that the DNC knifed Mrs. Clinton in the back.

So, I did a little google for you, start here in your education.

Problems with popular vote metrics[edit]
Caucus states[edit]
The popular vote is easiest to tally in primary elections, where a simple vote for a candidate is recorded. Incaucuses, the "popular vote" is often interpreted as the number of supporters who vote for each candidate at the conclusion of precinct-level caucuses. The table uses the official "popular vote" reported in all primary states and in the caucus states of Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Guam. Official numbers were not reported in the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine. These four states have been estimated by RealClearPoliticsbased on other information released by the states.[13] In Texas, two-thirds of pledged delegates were selected through a primary, while one-third were selected through caucuses. However, voters were eligible to participate in the caucuses only if they also voted in the primary, so RealClearPolitics used the primary results and ignored the caucus in determining the popular vote.

Nationwide, the RealClearPolitics tally counted one caucus participant as equal to one primary participant. However, turnout is generally lower in caucuses, and as a result, the popular vote may overweight the influence of primary states.[14] For example, Hawaii and Rhode Island have similar populations, but the opinion of Rhode Islanders is weighted more heavily in the popular vote total. Clinton won the Rhode Island primary 58-40% and received 33,600 more votes than Obama. In contrast, Obama won the Hawaii caucuses 76-24%, but received only 19,500 more votes than Clinton.[13] Thus, some researchers argue that the popular vote underestimates the depth of Obama's support in caucus states.[15] If these states were to hold primaries and Obama were to win by a similar margin, his popular vote total would be considerably higher.[15]However, Clinton argued that she would have done better in these states if primaries were held.[16]

and

Nomination rules[edit]
Finally, the nomination was decided by delegates under the Democratic Party's rules, so the candidates campaigned to maximize their delegate advantage. If the nomination were decided by popular vote, they likely would have campaigned differently, in order to run up the vote in populous states like New York and Illinois. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that the popular vote should have no effect under the current rules: "It’s a delegate race. The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."[19] Obama's chief strategist suggested that the Clinton campaign's focus on the popular vote was a distraction tactic: "When they started off, it was all about delegates.... Now that we have more delegates, it’s all about the popular vote. And if that does not work out, they will probably challenge us to a game ofcribbage to choose the nominee."[19] Nevertheless, polls have shown that a plurality of Democrats think superdelegates should consider the popular vote when deciding which candidate to support.[20]

Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The truth is exactly what I said, the delegates decide. As you can read the whole caucus/primary system seems to be an actual joke. So the DNC coming up with whatever numbers they want seem to be in order. In 2008 the leadership wanted Obama and that is where the super delegates went after pledging to Mrs. Clinton.

I wonder how many democrats don't even vote because they know it really doesn't matter.

 

[candycorn]

The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.

The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.

You're confused. Here is why.

The Democratic and Republican political parties are private entities. If the GOP wanted to make it to where every 5th delegate got 8 votes and every 19th delegate got 1/2 a vote, they could do that. If the DNC wanted to put Maine first instead of Iowa, it could do that as well while the GOP keeps Iowa first. That the primary/caucus schedules largely mirror one another was to make it easier for voters and the Parties since facilities would be used for just one day, etc... This is why the GOP caucus in Iowa was different than the DNC caucus rules Iowa.

The notion of "super delegates" goes back (at least) to the 1984 election of Mondale in the DNC. It helps ensure a nut job like Donald Trump doesn't hijack the Party and that the Party rewards patronage.

All candidates who run are aware of the DNC use of super delegates.

The only fertile ground that some have for complaint is that when the delegate counts are announced, the media doesn't broadcast how many were earned and how many were HRC's to start with.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.

The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.

sorry the democrat party is not the government

so they can set the rules

no matter what hillary is the one that is going to represent the party