Whats with this "Super Delegates" crap?

[NoStateofMind]

If I understand this correctly, super delegates are members or former members of senate/congress. Each one adds a delegate for whomever they vote for. I don't like it, it wreaks of partisan politics and special interest groups. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[nageov3t]

partisans are people too

I mean, there's gotta be some swayable buffer to moderate a brokered convention.

 

[Nitemare]

It's just another way to ensure that we have 2 polar extremes vs 2 true representatives of the people. Blame the fatcats in DC...

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: loki8481
partisans are people too

I mean, there's gotta be some swayable buffer to moderate a brokered convention.

Well let them vote like people. Don't give their votes the "delegate" stature.

 

[Nitemare]

Yeah if it wasn't for the super delegates Obama would be winning

 

[Avalon]

Don't like it either. Obama has been winning a bit more delegates and states than Clinton, yet she's got the superdelegates behind her back, making it seem like she's doing the winning, when in reality it only seems like she's being propped up.

 

[NoStateofMind]

It just further tips the balance of power toward washingtonites & their financial backers. It's like going to a casino thinking that you're going to win more than you lose. The cards are stacked and I'm yelling FOUL!

 

[M0RPH]

It's just another example of how screwed up our election system is. Hey, I have a crazy idea, how bout if the delegates don't decide it, let the results of the popular vote decide it. i guess that's too radical of an idea to let people's votes count equally in this country.

 

[Pabster]

Yep. Super Delegates were created to give the establishment advantage, and take it away from the plurality.

 

[nageov3t]

without the super delegates, though, what would you do in the event of a 50:50 electoral split? have a shouting match?

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the super delegates, though, what would you do in the event of a 50:50 electoral split? have a shouting match?

Sounds like a better plan to me.
Maybe best 2 out of 3 in a sumo tournament?

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the super delegates, though, what would you do in the event of a 50:50 electoral split? have a shouting match?

Have an odd number of delegates so that you can't have a 50:50 split?

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the super delegates, though, what would you do in the event of a 50:50 electoral split? have a shouting match?

What's wrong with letting the popular vote decide it?

 

[BrownTown]

I still don't think alot of people get it primaries are NOT part of the general election, there was a time when normal people had absolutely no control over them, so relatively speaking we are doing pretty good these days. The primaries are way for the PARTIES (not people, but political entities) to choose who will represent them in the general election. Why shouldn't the leadership of the party have more say than everyone else? It is like saying all stockholders should get the same vote in a company, or students at a university should get as much a vote as the administration. The leadership of the party wants to choose the best canidate to represent THEIR values, not anyone elses.

The thing is with this two party system we have everyone makes it seem like "Republican" and "Democrat" are somehow mandated by law or something like that, in reality they are just a group of like-minded people who decide to work together, there is nothing saying you have to vote for either or them, anyone can run for president if they get enough support, you can vote for anyone you want to no matter what party they are (even people with no party). The fact that there are only 2 parties with any real power in this country is because thats how people voted, if you don't like it, or think the parties are corrupt in how they choose their delegates than vote for someone else, nothing saying you have to choose one or the other.

 

[0roo0roo]

seriously thats nothing.
the caucus system is the most undemocratic aspect of all in some states, it basically keeps many voters away by making it a burden to vote

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
I still don't think alot of people get it primaries are NOT part of the general election, there was a time when normal people had absolutely no control over them, so relatively speaking we are doing pretty good these days. The primaries are way for the PARTIES (not people, but political entities) to choose who will represent them in the general election. Why shouldn't the leadership of the party have more say than everyone else? It is like saying all stockholders should get the same vote in a company, or students at a university should get as much a vote as the administration. The leadership of the party wants to choose the best canidate to represent THEIR values, not anyone elses.

The thing is with this two party system we have everyone makes it seem like "Republican" and "Democrat" are somehow mandated by law or something like that, in reality they are just a group of like-minded people who decide to work together, there is nothing saying you have to vote for either or them, anyone can run for president if they get enough support, you can vote for anyone you want to no matter what party they are (even people with no party). The fact that there are only 2 parties with any real power in this country is because thats how people voted, if you don't like it, or think the parties are corrupt in how they choose their delegates than vote for someone else, nothing saying you have to choose one or the other.

Well if the party is to decide who runs, then why have a damned primary? Why not just say "this is our candidate" and stop the fucking charade about voting actually counting? Flawed democracy FTL!

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: BrownTown
I still don't think alot of people get it primaries are NOT part of the general election, there was a time when normal people had absolutely no control over them, so relatively speaking we are doing pretty good these days. The primaries are way for the PARTIES (not people, but political entities) to choose who will represent them in the general election. Why shouldn't the leadership of the party have more say than everyone else? It is like saying all stockholders should get the same vote in a company, or students at a university should get as much a vote as the administration. The leadership of the party wants to choose the best canidate to represent THEIR values, not anyone elses.

The thing is with this two party system we have everyone makes it seem like "Republican" and "Democrat" are somehow mandated by law or something like that, in reality they are just a group of like-minded people who decide to work together, there is nothing saying you have to vote for either or them, anyone can run for president if they get enough support, you can vote for anyone you want to no matter what party they are (even people with no party). The fact that there are only 2 parties with any real power in this country is because thats how people voted, if you don't like it, or think the parties are corrupt in how they choose their delegates than vote for someone else, nothing saying you have to choose one or the other.

Well if the party is to decide who runs, then why have a damned primary? Why not just say "this is our candidate" and stop the fucking charade about voting actually counting? Flawed democracy FTL!

they could if they wanted to, and there's an argument to be made for the candidates who were selected in the back rooms being pretty superior to any candidate elected in a primary.

the primary system is just a compromise.

 

[aplefka]

This is probably the first time I've ever posted in P&N, and I was curious about this issue as well.

Thanks for the info BrownTown. :thumbsup:

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
I still don't think alot of people get it primaries are NOT part of the general election, there was a time when normal people had absolutely no control over them, so relatively speaking we are doing pretty good these days. The primaries are way for the PARTIES (not people, but political entities) to choose who will represent them in the general election. Why shouldn't the leadership of the party have more say than everyone else? It is like saying all stockholders should get the same vote in a company, or students at a university should get as much a vote as the administration. The leadership of the party wants to choose the best canidate to represent THEIR values, not anyone elses.

The thing is with this two party system we have everyone makes it seem like "Republican" and "Democrat" are somehow mandated by law or something like that, in reality they are just a group of like-minded people who decide to work together, there is nothing saying you have to vote for either or them, anyone can run for president if they get enough support, you can vote for anyone you want to no matter what party they are (even people with no party). The fact that there are only 2 parties with any real power in this country is because thats how people voted, if you don't like it, or think the parties are corrupt in how they choose their delegates than vote for someone else, nothing saying you have to choose one or the other.

Yeah but there would be HELL to pay if Obama wins the most elected delegates but Clinton gets the nomination due to super delegates.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the super delegates, though, what would you do in the event of a 50:50 electoral split? have a shouting match?

Have an odd number of delegates so that you can't have a 50:50 split?

Except with multiple candidates you could end up with something like this 50:50:49 then what?

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Yeah but there would be HELL to pay if Obama wins the most elected delegates but Clinton gets the nomination due to super delegates.

I'm pretty sure that has happened before. Especially when there are multiple candidates and there is no majority. It is possible that in the Republican side that could happen too if McCain doesn't get enough delegtes than there are rules about what they do and its possible that one of the other candidates could make it by way of some back room dealing. Its unlikely either will happen though, but certainly possible, just like Al Gore "winning" the election in 2000 and losing out for the presidency.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the super delegates, though, what would you do in the event of a 50:50 electoral split? have a shouting match?

Have an odd number of delegates so that you can't have a 50:50 split?

Except with multiple candidates you could end up with something like this 50:50:49 then what?

We could do it the Papal way: Everyone has to stay and is forced to argue and revote again and again until they can pick a winner. (Or a more practical solution is just to do run-off voting; the guy with 49 would be out)

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the super delegates, though, what would you do in the event of a 50:50 electoral split? have a shouting match?

Have an odd number of delegates so that you can't have a 50:50 split?

Except with multiple candidates you could end up with something like this 50:50:49 then what?

We could do it the Papal way: Everyone has to stay and is forced to argue and revote again and again until they can pick a winner. (Or a more practical solution is just to do run-off voting; the guy with 49 would be out)

This is what used to happen prior to FDR

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the super delegates, though, what would you do in the event of a 50:50 electoral split? have a shouting match?

Texas cage match imho