[maxiep]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

Apparently so. Resorting to Wikipedia for expedience sake:



Sounds like a case of "tomayto", "tomahto" to me.

Resorting to Wikipedia for the same reason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegates

A majority of the unpledged delegates are elected much like the pledged delegates, and are likely to be committed to a specific candidate. Many of the other unpledged delegates automatically claim the delegate status either by virtue of their position as a party chair or national party committee person. This group is known as unpledged RNC member delegates.

This system sounds only marginally better, but it still blows.

[el_Diablo]

We basically have the same choice as those "enlightened" European parlimentary systems. Don't forget, they have 100% party unity. You vote the party line. Period.

I don't understand. it's true the members of the parties often (almost always) vote according to the party line, but what has that to do with minority parties getting in to the parliament?

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by el_Diablo

I don't understand. it's true the members of the parties often (almost always) vote according to the party line, but what has that to do with minority parties getting in to the parliament?

Because the radical fringes from both parties essentially represent the interests of parties that would exist to the left and the right, regardless of the flag they carry. We have the equivalent of 7-8 parties, just under the guise of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Does their existence offend anyone else?

Their existence is a glaring contradiction to fundamental Democratic "principles," in the sense that they can overrule the will of the people. If I were a Democrat I'd be furious about it, but since I'm not I can just enjoy it as one more evidence of wacky Lib thinking.

[Stepping Razor]

I'm not a Democrat either but I agree with pretty much everyone here that the Superdelegates should not exist, are antidemocratic, etc. The only saving grace, it seems to me, is that I don't think they would ever actually exercise their potential power to overturn the will of the people. It's hard for me to believe that even Democratic politicians could do something *that* self-destructive... although now that I think about it...

[Dan]

superdelegates and electorates served a purpose. Once. And no longer do.

[Dornado]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Their existence is a glaring contradiction to fundamental Democratic "principles," in the sense that they can overrule the will of the people. If I were a Democrat I'd be furious about it, but since I'm not I can just enjoy it as one more evidence of wacky Lib thinking.

Did you even read the part of the thread where the Republicans have essentially the same procedure?

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Dornado

Did you even read the part of the thread where the Republicans have essentially the same procedure?

you haven't read much of his posts, have you?

He never admits to reading anything that contradicts, disproves, or totally shows that his beliefs or what he says is pure bunk. Instead, he just changes the subject to something new, or throws out the same thing re-written to sound different.

[It's_GO_Time]

I know it goes against the fundamentals of democracy . . . but I think delegates are more likely to pick the right president as oppose to the general public.

In fact the reason I support Obama again is because of the support he has received by delegates after the whole pastor thing.

If I was to pick a system, I would have delegates pick the nomination for each party and then have a general election.

[barfo]

Complaints about the delegate selection process would have been a lot more plausible if lodged a year ago. Complaints lodged now can reasonably be assumed to be sour grapes.

The rules are the rules, and if you don't like them, protest before you suit up to play the game.

barfo

[dudleysghost]

I think it's a huge stretch to try to relate supposed Democratic "paternalism" to the party's anachronistic nominating process, but yes, it is an absurd process. So is the Republican's system, and our whole electoral college. I'm certain that if the superdelegates actually are somehow used to override the votes of the people in this year's nomination, Democrats will be very outraged, and I'd bet that the system gets changed after this year whether it creates major controversy or not.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by dudleysghost

I think it's a huge stretch to try to relate supposed Democratic "paternalism" to the party's anachronistic nominating process, but yes, it is an absurd process. So is the Republican's system, and our whole electoral college. I'm certain that if the superdelegates actually are somehow used to override the votes of the people in this year's nomination, Democrats will be very outraged, and I'd bet that the system gets changed after this year whether it creates major controversy or not.

Duds, the Democrats have acknowledged that they instituted the "superdelegate" to safeguard against nominating an unelectable candidate. If that's not paternalism, then it's maternalism. Either way, it's not some cute anacronism; it's a control mechanism on the will of the people in the Party.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Duds, the Democrats have acknowledged that they instituted the "superdelegate" to safeguard against nominating an unelectable candidate. If that's not paternalism, then it's maternalism. Either way, it's not some cute anacronism; it's a control mechanism on the will of the people in the Party.

I'm certainly no supporter of the Democratic Party, but the system sounds pretty wise to me given the long, ridiculously drawn-out primary process. If it were to come out the week before the election (say for the sake of discussion only) that Obama not only knew about some of Reverend Wright's more incendiary comments, but that there was a recording of him sharing some of the same views, it would make him totally unelectable. While it would be true that he would still have the majority of the pledged delegates because the people voted for him in the primaries, it would be ridiculous to believe that making him the candidate would still reflect the majority wishes of Democratic voters. In such an instance, it would make perfect sense for the superdelegates (hmmm, do they get a snazzy superdelegate costume with a big S on the front?) to exercise their authority to change the nominee to one they believe could be elected. As long as they use great discretion in making a decision to break from the voter's will, I don't see the big problem.

I'm totally in favor of revamping our electoral process to something much more democratic. Given the technology available today, we should be able to have a safe computerized voting system that would allow for a much shorter primary season where the elections would be held on a reasonable regional schedule. We should also be able to do away with the need for an electoral college. Until the system is finally revamped, however, it seems to me that the idea of having a safety net of uncommitted delegates isn't all bad.