Also, party leadership constantly changes the rules to suit the election cycle. They are a private entity and can run primaries however they want. In the DNC vs Sanders case, they successfully argued that they can elect canddates in a smoke filled back room if they so chose, and had no legal duty to fairness or in representing the will of the voters whatsoever.
It is entirely true. No superdelegate can vote in the initial primary vote.
They are a private entity and can run primaries however they want.
Subject to the DNC charter. They are bound by the DNC charter in the same way that the government is bound by the Constitution.
they successfully argued that they can elect canddates in a smoke filled back room if they so chose
They argued they could change the DNC charter, which it technically true. The USA how the power to change its Constituion, but it is still bound by it.
Nope. Superdelegates were created in the 1980’s. After 2016 it was changed so that they cannot vote in any first round (making them powerless). Nothing has changed since then. This rule will likely still be in effect for the rest of your life.
They also made a bunch of changes before 2016. The party can and does change its nominating process anytime it wants to, and DNC lawyers argued in Sanders vs DNC that they are under no obligation to follow any rules. They can select wheover they want, in a back room if they wanted to. They won that case. They dont even need to follow the rules they state they are following.
DNC lawyers argued in Sanders vs DNC that they are under no obligation to follow any rules.
Nope. The argued they could change their own charter. It’s like the Constitution. The USA can change its own constitution but it sill has the right to follow it.
[From the transcript: “The court would have to basically tell the party that it couldn’t change [the neutrality rule], even though it’s a discretionary rule that it didn’t need to adopt to begin with.” - DNC attorney Bruce Spiva]
Dude your own link contradicts what you said. My quote proved it.
No. It didnt. You just dont have the reading comprehension or are being dishonest about it. I dont want to play that game with you, thanks. You have yourself a nice day now.
What part of ““The court would have to basically tell the party that it couldn’t change [the neutrality rule]” did you not understand? They are clearly talking about rules changes here.
I’m afraid thats not entirely true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
Also, party leadership constantly changes the rules to suit the election cycle. They are a private entity and can run primaries however they want. In the DNC vs Sanders case, they successfully argued that they can elect canddates in a smoke filled back room if they so chose, and had no legal duty to fairness or in representing the will of the voters whatsoever.
It is entirely true. No superdelegate can vote in the initial primary vote.
Subject to the DNC charter. They are bound by the DNC charter in the same way that the government is bound by the Constitution.
They argued they could change the DNC charter, which it technically true. The USA how the power to change its Constituion, but it is still bound by it.
they change that rule as needed every election.
Nope. Superdelegates were created in the 1980’s. After 2016 it was changed so that they cannot vote in any first round (making them powerless). Nothing has changed since then. This rule will likely still be in effect for the rest of your life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-superdelegates-3367439
the rules were changed in 2016 and then again in 2020, and I’d argue 2024 as well They eliminated new hampshire from the primary process altogether in 2024 for that election, which to me sounds like a on the fly rule change, and a complete denial of those citizens vote in the election process. https://apnews.com/article/new-hampshire-democratic-primary-explained-1935530652e371fa3bffdad209ebea82
They also made a bunch of changes before 2016. The party can and does change its nominating process anytime it wants to, and DNC lawyers argued in Sanders vs DNC that they are under no obligation to follow any rules. They can select wheover they want, in a back room if they wanted to. They won that case. They dont even need to follow the rules they state they are following.
https://ivn.us/posts/dnc-to-court-we-are-a-private-corporation-with-no-obligation-to-follow-our-rules
So do we call it a rule if it doesnt even need to be followed? its more of a guideline as long as its convenient, isnt it?
Nope. The argued they could change their own charter. It’s like the Constitution. The USA can change its own constitution but it sill has the right to follow it.
[From the transcript: “The court would have to basically tell the party that it couldn’t change [the neutrality rule], even though it’s a discretionary rule that it didn’t need to adopt to begin with.” - DNC attorney Bruce Spiva]
Dude your own link contradicts what you said. My quote proved it.
No. It didnt. You just dont have the reading comprehension or are being dishonest about it. I dont want to play that game with you, thanks. You have yourself a nice day now.
What part of ““The court would have to basically tell the party that it couldn’t change [the neutrality rule]” did you not understand? They are clearly talking about rules changes here.