The Superdelagates to decide the Democratic Candidate

Ikohn4ever

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
Was watching the coverage today. They showed on their little graph that if either Obama or Clinton win all the rest of the states by a margin of 55-45 then neither candidate will have enough delegates to be declared the Democratic candidate. So pretty much unless there is a landslide one way or another the decision will be out the regular person's hands.



Now the question besides Clinton fighting for Michigan and Florida, is should the Super Delegate go along with the state they are from or should they go with their own decision.

There are obviously arguments for both sides. Either way I can see a lot of possible bitterness if a candidate is decided by back room deals.


Just curious what other CAGs think about this.
 
Superdelegates should be a representation of the voting in their respective state. Outside of that, the nominee should not come down to the decision of a few people.

Because I will be pissed if we have a candidate chosen by the people at the end, and the superdelegates fuck all that up because they don't share that person's views, and abuse their power to pick the candidate they want.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']should the Super Delegate go along with the state they are from[/QUOTE]

This. We are a representative democracy first and foremost.

As liberal as I am proud to be, I am suspicious at the political power plays the Clintons are capable of. I also think Obama has a far greater chance at winning the general election than Hillary.

To be fair, though, if they go with their own states, would that just perpetuate the stalemate, or give us a clear winner? If the latter, who would that be?
 
If superdelegates throw the primary to the candidate who didn't win the most delegates or the most votes, it will be a huge scandal. It will mean one of the two major parties has a candidate hand-picked by the party elite in backroom dealings in defiance of the will of the people. It would be a huge issue in the general election as well.

Needless to say, I'm kind of hoping this happens. It could bring into question the two-party system, always a good thing in my book.
 
If the Democrats need any reason to NOT ignore the popular vote, they need only look back to the 2000 General Elections...

~HotShotX
 
I think the Superdelegate system is silly and a bit too "I don't trust the public's vote" to me. I know, people feel the same way about the electoral college...but that's at least based in each state's vote as to which way they swing, this doesn't even have that going for it.

If they're going to keep it -- make it representative of the wills of the people, Governors go with whoever won your state, same with Senators. Representatives and General Committee members go with who won in your local area/district. That's that...easy enough to me. It might keep up the stalemate...it might not, since now winning each state can give you 1-3 more votes from said state.
 
Theres nothing that says the electors in the electoral college have to vote the way their state does. They can pretty much vote however they want.
 
Yeah thats true JoleitJake, but if they go against what their state did, it seems un-democratic doesn't it?

I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another. This is another shining example of the failures of the electoral process. It's too damn long, drawn out, and complicated.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Theres nothing that says the electors in the electoral college have to vote the way their state does. They can pretty much vote however they want.[/quote]



I believe they can also not vote too if I remember one of the DC electors didnt vote in 2004 out of protest to somethign
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Yeah thats true JoleitJake, but if they go against what their state did, it seems un-democratic doesn't it?

I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another. This is another shining example of the failures of the electoral process. It's too damn long, drawn out, and complicated.[/quote]
Well yeah of course it seems un-democratic. It still pisses me off that the electoral college was responsible for electing Bush. I've wanted it to be removed since then, that one election alone should prove why it isn't fair.
 
I completely agree. Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed.

Thankfully we have a better way of dealing with election fraud than...oh I don't know...lets say...Kenya.

Biting the bullet and just dealing with the ISOAA seemed a better alternative to machete wars at the time, but now I don't know.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']If superdelegates throw the primary to the candidate who didn't win the most delegates or the most votes, it will be a huge scandal.[/QUOTE]

Which is enough to show (lawd I hope so) that it won't happen like that.
 
We've had enough electoral scandals this decade, they will go with what the majority wants them to...meaning Obama.
 
Anyone see this ad from the top of the page?

gophiringkz8.jpg



Yeah good luck with that....
 
Hillary will probably get the popular vote while obama gets a slight pledged delegate count (but no where near the required 2000+). And then watch the hypocrisy ensues by the Obama camp trying to spin the delegate count as the sole "democracy" factor in deciding the nominee instead of the popular vote.

Hillary should just concede and let Obama suffer a landslide defeat (ala McGovern) in the general election, and do a "I told you so" and secure the nomination 4 years later. Seriously, Obama is such a spoiler and already created such a deep division in the party that is irreconcilable before the general election (ala making the Clintons look like racists, etc). Whoever wins, the other base will be voting against him/her in the general.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Anyone see this ad from the top of the page?

gophiringkz8.jpg



Yeah good luck with that....[/QUOTE]

I like how they try to represent all races when pretty much everyone who supports the GOP is as white as a ghost... :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
[quote name='rumblebear']Hillary will probably get the popular vote while obama gets a slight pledged delegate count (but no where near the required 2000+). And then watch the hypocrisy ensues by the Obama camp trying to spin the delegate count as the sole "democracy" factor in deciding the nominee instead of the popular vote.

Hillary should just concede and let Obama suffer a landslide defeat (ala McGovern) in the general election, and do a "I told you so" and secure the nomination 4 years later. Seriously, Obama is such a spoiler and already created such a deep division in the party that is irreconcilable before the general election (ala making the Clintons look like racists, etc). Whoever wins, the other base will be voting against him/her in the general.[/QUOTE]

Dude, are you really serious? Considering Obama's in the lead if you're counting popular votes (even when you consider the FL and MI primaries that honestly shouldn't count w/o a revote), and Obama's in the lead in total delagates... Clinton may have a chance to take back the popular vote lead but its not gauranteed.

Plus, I see no reason why Obama would suffer a landslide defeat in the general election. Polls say that he'd beat McCain with a larger margin than Clinton would.

Also, I really don't see Obama creating a division within the party. I do know there are a lot of people that hate Hillary, for one reason or another, and don't want to vote for her. People that would vote for Clinton and not Obama? Not nearly as many IMO.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']I think the Superdelegate system is silly and a bit too "I don't trust the public's vote" to me.[/quote]

That was originally the purpose.

The whole system seems very undemocratic to me, and if they vote along with their states...then what's the point? Mostly, though, there are way too many of them.

Each superdelegate counts for about 10,000 normal votes. That just doesn't seem right to me, and I think it's fair if voters are upset.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']I like how they try to represent all races when pretty much everyone who supports the GOP is as white as a ghost... :rofl::rofl::rofl:[/QUOTE]


I was thinking that exact same thing.


And Pinata Monkey is right: Hillary, and both of the Clintons for that matter, really are divisive and rally alot of R's against them. Obama otoh draws pop support from both camps, is leading in pop support for Dem primaries, is leading in delegates, and has a better shot of beating McCain.
 
I really hope hilary doesn't get the nomination, if so then we can look forward to another 4 years of GOP bullshit. I have nothing against her personally, but Obama has a better chance of beating the Republicans.
 
[quote name='primetime']That was originally the purpose.

The whole system seems very undemocratic to me, and if they vote along with their states...then what's the point? Mostly, though, there are way too many of them.

Each superdelegate counts for about 10,000 normal votes. That just doesn't seem right to me, and I think it's fair if voters are upset.[/QUOTE]

That's because voters who participate in the primary election only constitute a tiny minority of the general election voters, so they are essentially the screaming minority. The superdelegates were set up post-McGovern landslide defeat in order to avoid another instance of ultra-left wing grass root camps from hijacking and deciding the democratic nominee, who has no chance of winning the general election. Everything about Obama reminds me of McGovern, who had very, very strong enthusiastic support among college students, professors, rich liberals, etc, holds very liberal positions, and was strongly against the unpopular vietnam war. Though unlike Obama, McGovern had far more experience, provided detailed plans, white, and was a military veteran.

If you think Obama and his cult-like vision of a ultra liberal paradise represent what most Americans want, you will be in quite a shock once reality sets in at the general election when the silent majority votes.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Well yeah of course it seems un-democratic. It still pisses me off that the electoral college was responsible for electing Bush. I've wanted it to be removed since then, that one election alone should prove why it isn't fair.[/QUOTE]

Be careful what you wish for. If it weren't for the electoral college, Lincoln would have lost in 1860.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Be careful what you wish for. If it weren't for the electoral college, Lincoln would have lost in 1860.[/quote]


So without the electoral college we wouldn't have had Bush AND we could still own people? :whistle2:k:idea:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top