@Matt_Heins wrote:
It will certainly be a big step.
But I do worry sometimes that progressive reformers - especially those on the Inside DPA path - don't seem to have any inkling of the first rule of negotiation:
You never get your first offer.
Which leads directly to the second rule:
Your first offer should always be bolder than what you can accept.
They do this same thing with most every point of reform. Healthcare is a perfect example. They call for Medicare for All - which would be great, of course. But why just that? The really succesful countries don't just have State Health Insurance, they have Social Medicine - State Hospitals and Clinics, etc. You ask for Medicare for All and you end with Obama care. You demand Social Medicine and you will get Medicare for All.
So better than to call for ending the superdelegates hoping to get an end to the superdelegates, we should be calling for an end to the "primaries" and their replacement by a truly democratic series of winnowing nomination elections, figuring that the compromise will get us the end of the superdelegates.
But hopefully I am wrong in this case though I have been right in others. Because, again, the end of the superdelegates really would be a big step in the right direction.
P.S. "Winnowing Elections":
The series of so-called primaries is strongly biased in favor of party insiders and long time politicos. One has to be a national figure of some prominence a full year before the convention to have any chance at all. The handful of people who can jump through this hoop must then "score big" in PSM-manipulated debates in order to force the coverage that will be their only way to do well enough in the qualifying rounds in Iowa and New Hampshire - half a year before the convention - to be allowed to continue decently. After this, the format of ever-switching around and pseudo-ordered state primaries awarding pledged delegates allows the PSM to cover in horse-race style and reasonable public perception to see the candidates as "behind" or "ahead" of each other. Therefore, lesser-known and lesser-connected candidates are always "coming from behind" since early states tend to go to the better-known and better-connected candidates' way.
A better, and much more democratic way would be to hold a series of national party wide elections in which a very open playing field of candidates meeting minimal requirements is steadily windowed down to the top two candidates, who then face off in the final national election, run-off style. Furthermore, the playing field can be much leveled by providing party funds and publicity equally to all candidates, getting progressively more extensive as the field narrows. This would be in addition to private contributions to the candidate. In such a system, one need not be an party insider or long time politician to stand a chance. Party members across the country would decide who the serious candidates are, not the PSM and Iowans . And after multiple chances to reflect, not just a one off, possibly soon regretted.