I think I should put this back up given the theme I see here today. (I saved off line the entire article because I am afraid it will disappear.)

𝕆𝕌ℝ 𝔻𝔼𝕄𝕆ℂℝ𝔸ℂ𝕐

𝕆𝕌ℝ 𝔻𝔼𝕄𝕆ℂℝ𝔸ℂ𝕐

What the Democrats actually mean is not ‘democracy but CORPORATISM

Corporatism

Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative representation is given to industries or professional and economic groups. Ostensibly, the entire society is to be run by decisions collectively made by these groups. 

Robert Barnes clued me in when he spoke of SUPER DELEGATES. THEY are the ones who actually CHOOSE:

Super delegates are ELECTED Democrats (Senators, Congressman) AND WEALTHY DONORS.

SO I went to see if Barnes was correct and this is what I found behind a paywall (Now Archived)

THINK PROGRESS: True Life Adventures Of A Democratic Superdelegate
by Alice Ollstein May 11, 2016

…In every election since 1984, the Democratic Party has used a semi-private, semi-public system to choose its presidential nominee…

Meanwhile, the superdelegate-free Republican Party is in the midst of a full-on meltdown over political neophyte Donald Trump winning the nomination, and GOP officials are mulling rule changes to prevent such a result in the future.

…the superdelegates pretty much went unnoticed before 2008, because that was the first primary in a long time with a close nomination race. Most of the time, the superdelegates just don’t matter.

AND THE WINNING STATEMENT:

…you have to remember, 👉𝗡𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗬 𝗕𝗨𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗦. 𝗜𝗧’𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗔 𝗣𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖 𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗘.Political parties are not in the Constitution, but they are protected by the First Amendment’s right of free association. There’s no constitutional guarantee that you can participate in the activity of a party. They’re a funny, semi-public organization. And 👉𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗠𝗢𝗦𝗧 𝗢𝗙 𝗛𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗬, 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗗𝗘𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗦 𝗪𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗢𝗡𝗟𝗬 𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗦 𝗣𝗜𝗖𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗡𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗘𝗦. You couldn’t go to a convention unless you had some kind of tie to the party, either being elected on its ticket or worked really hard in the party. The notion that voters would pick the nominee was foreign all the way from 1831 to 1972. And in most democracies in the world, voters don’t get to choose the nominee of the party. Because this has become such a public process here, people have forgotten that, in the end, the parties get to decide who is a Democrat and who is a Republican….

“Superdelegate” has become a dirty word this election cycle.

In every election since 1984, the Democratic Party has used a semi-private, semi-public system to choose its presidential nominee — electing more than three-quarters of delegates through open state conventions, but giving a few hundred Democratic elected officials, Democratic National Committee members, and party elites an automatic vote. Unlike the pledged delegates, who must cast their vote for whichever candidate won their state or district, these so-called superdelegates can back whomever they choose.

This year, the superdelegates sided early and overwhelmingly with Hillary Clinton, and the backlash from supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has been fierce. Sanders himself has blasted the system itself as “absurd” and “unfair,” but has vowed in recent weeks to use superdelegates to win the nomination. His army of supporters has taken matters into their own hands, setting up an online “hit list” with superdelegates’ contact information, and repeatedly calling them, visiting their offices, and bombarding them on social media with pleas to change their allegiance to Sanders. Some superdelegates have reported feeling “threatened” and “harassed”, and the strategy seems to be doing little to help his campaign.

Even if superdelegates were eliminated, Sanders would still trail Clinton in the pledged delegate count.

Meanwhile, the superdelegate-free Republican Party is in the midst of a full-on meltdown over political neophyte Donald Trump winning the nomination, and GOP officials are mulling rule changes to prevent such a result in the future.

To find out more about the past, present, and possible future of superdelegates, ThinkProgress sat down with one.

Elaine Kamarck, who served in the White House from 1993 to 1997, and then became a member of the Democratic National Committee, has been a superdelegate for Massachusetts in the last four presidential elections. A lecturer at Harvard Kennedy School of Government and a scholar at the Brookings think tank, Kamarck also literally wrote the book on primaries.

ThinkProgress: Tell us what being a superdelegate entails.

Elaine Kamarck: For almost 20 years now, I have paid my own money and taken my own time to serve on the DNC. Four or five times a year I go to the meetings of the Rules Committee. It takes a lot of preparation. I pay for my own hotel. I help the party set out the rules for its convention. And in all four conventions I’ve been in, I’ve always voted for the nominee of the party and the nominee of the party has always been the person who got the most votes.

Like the vast majority of superdelegates, you are supporting Hillary Clinton. Why?

I think she’d be a great president and she really knows what she’s doing, by virtue of her background and the things she’s done in the world. Being a woman helps, I have to say. But it’s really because I’ve seen her up close and personal and she’s tough and she’s got great judgement. Plus, she can work with Republicans. I’m pretty enthusiastic.

👉Tell us about what happened in 2008, when you and other superdelegates switched from Clinton to Obama.

Most of the superdelegates started out being for Hillary because they knew her. But over the course of the season, Obama showed himself to be a very strong candidate, and he showed himself to be someone capable of being president. His attractiveness grew on people. And even before the last primary, certainly in May, a lot of the superdelegates moved to Obama. And [the Obama campaign] played a two-tiered game. On the one hand they were criticizing it, saying, “Oh, this is undemocratic.” On the other hand, Obama was calling superdelegates intensely and making the argument that he could win a general election.

Do you see a similar pattern happening now, with Sanders criticizing superdelegates but trying to use them?

Yes, we see Senator Sanders doing the same thing. He’s criticizing it overtly, but on other days he says he’s going to win with the superdelegates by convincing them to move over.

But Sanders supporters aren’t just courting superdelegates, they’re also targeting them for protest and pressure.

Right, it’s a hard thing to do both. From my conversations with members of Congress, they’re saying, ‘Gimme a break. We know these people and we know who we would rather govern with.’ They aren’t likely to be swayed. Remember, parties are a brand, and the superdelegates care about protecting that brand, for better or worse. No democracy in the world is without political parties, but everybody always hates them.

Do you feel that the criticisms of superdelegates are unprecedented this year?

Well, the superdelegates pretty much went unnoticed before 2008, because that was the first primary in a long time with a close nomination race. Most of the time, the superdelegates just don’t matter. In 2000, the first time I was a superdelegate, Gore defeated Bradley in New Hampshire and that was basically it. In 2004, I was originally for Howard Dean, but Kerry came out ahead in Iowa, and a month later, it was over. So this is just the second time around that we’ve had a close race that’s gone through the season. And because the nomination system only happens every four years, there’s always a new generation saying, ‘What? You do this like this?” So it’s kind of an every-four-years surprise.

This election is also energizing people who haven’t been involved in politics before, and they’re taking a hard look at the nomination rules and how fair or unfair they are.

That’s fine. But you have to remember, nominations are party business. It’s not a public race. Political parties are not in the Constitution, but they are protected by the First Amendment’s right of free association. There’s no constitutional guarantee that you can participate in the activity of a party. They’re a funny, semi-public organization. And for most of history, superdelegates were the only ones picking nominees. You couldn’t go to a convention unless you had some kind of tie to the party, either being elected on its ticket or worked really hard in the party. The notion that voters would pick the nominee was foreign all the way from 1831 to 1972. And in most democracies in the world, voters don’t get to choose the nominee of the party. Because this has become such a public process here, people have forgotten that, in the end, the parties get to decide who is a Democrat and who is a Republican.

This is why the Republicans are in such disarray right now. There are a lot of people who are saying, with justification, that Donald Trump is not a Republican. So I suspect a lot of people in that party are rethinking their whole process, because they’ve been hijacked by a celebrity.

You’re saying the Republicans wish they had superdelegates?

Yes, there are a lot of Republicans saying they wish they had superdelegates….