Superdelegates Undermining Our Democracy

[Handsomebwonderfull]

We aren't a democracy... Come on guys

2 Senators from Iowa represent how many people compared to 2 senators from California

Electoral college, Supreme Court life appointments, etc

And now people are whining about super delegates?

It's like getting pissed off that when car got lit on fire that it had a flat tire

Lol

 

[UpaLoompa]

Got to the third paragraph before " most countries with plurality voting have more than two parties. While the United States is very much a two-party system, the United Kingdom, Canada, India and Australia have consistently had multiparty parliaments" which suggest it's more our culture than our process

Read more of the page, it discusses a lot of that. Also, the UK has been dominated by two parties for much of recent history--2010 being a changing point. Moreover, when you look locally it is still usually two even if at the national level you end up with more.

 

[njinsa]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was interviewed about this issue the other day, and this was her response:

Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists. We are as a Democratic Party really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grassroots activists and diverse, committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend, and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn’t competition between them.

http://truthinmedia.com/dnc-chair-superdelegates-protect-party-leaders-from-grassroots-competition/

 

[Ruprecht]

Got to the third paragraph before " most countries with plurality voting have more than two parties. While the United States is very much a two-party system, the United Kingdom, Canada, India and Australia have consistently had multiparty parliaments" which suggest it's more our culture than our process

You know the differences between the commonwealth parliamentary systems and the US though, right?
The leadership spills and hung parliaments of the last few elections are the systemic reactions of the parliamentary system to exactly the sort of voter dissatisfaction we're talking about.
As opposed to the "first past the post" "winner takes all" presidential elections, where this simply can't happen.

 

[VivaRevolution]

That's the fault of the population though.

No, the RNC/DNC rigged the game so that you can't get on all 50 state ballots unless you are a R or D.

In most cases you are correct, we need to look in the mirror, but as far as running for president 3rd party, the game is rigged.

 

[matburn H]

The primary system we know today is only 80 years old or so. The super delegates are a failsafe that puts final control of the nomination for the national candidate in the hands of the party, which it had ALWAYS been. The parties are under no obligation to operate under a majority vote, if you don't like it make caucus pledges a primary concern when voting in you state elections.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

We aren't a democracy... Come on guys

2 Senators from Iowa represent how many people compared to 2 senators from California

Electoral college, Supreme Court life appointments, etc

And now people are whining about super delegates?

It's like getting pissed off that when car got lit on fire that it had a flat tire

Lol

They are only whining because these are crazed libertarians/Bernie fans. Mad that even politicians from a neighboring state as Sanders don't like him.

So what do they do? They act like Bernie is the only one in the entire country who is not "corrupt". These CT nut jobs are now doing their best to undermine our democracy by spreading lies and conspiracy theories. Also, if Bernie was winning the Superdelegate vote you can bet your a$$ that his fans would be silent.

More interesting is how people don't understand that the Superdelegates caused Clinton to lose in 2008 to Obama.

 

[speakhandsforme]

The issue is no one said the decision for a party to select their candidate had to be democratic.

What's the name of the party we're talking about, though?

I think when a party called the Democratic Party has public elections, there's a certain expectation of democracy in those elections.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I think ideally we would have a system like the U.S. but with more parties and the ability for Congress to hold No confidence votes in extreme cases. I do like that aspect of Parliamentary systems but hate how it literally gives all power to party elites. In a parliamentary system there is just as much chance if not more to rig and buy out politicians. They decide who runs the country so a guy like Bernie Sanders would be screwed anyways.

The best system would mix the two systems in my opinion. And yeah from a fairness stand point why do small states get 2 Senators?

 

[speakhandsforme]

They are only whining because these are crazed libertarians/Bernie fans. Mad that even politicians from a neighboring state as Sanders don't like him.

So what do they do? They act like Bernie is the only one in the entire country who is not "corrupt". These CT nut jobs are now doing their best to undermine our democracy by spreading lies and conspiracy theories. Also, if Bernie was winning the Superdelegate vote you can bet your a$$ that his fans would be silent.

More interesting is how people don't understand that the Superdelegates caused Clinton to lose in 2008 to Obama.

You are sincerely the most fanatical person in this primary race, it would seem.

There is real rationale for leftists supporting Sanders and being critical of the Democratic establishment. There really isn't much rationale, from what I can tell, for your support of Clinton and your willingness to label every person supporting Sanders to be a CTer or libertarian-- I sure you that the leftists here such as myself who support Sanders have never been called or been ideologically disposed towards either label.

 

[Quipling]

You are sincerely the most fanatical person in this primary race, it would seem.

There is real rationale for leftists supporting Sanders and being critical of the Democratic establishment. There really isn't much rationale, from what I can tell, for your support of Clinton and your willingness to label every person supporting Sanders to be a CTer or libertarian-- I sure you that the leftists here such as myself who support Sanders have never been called or been ideologically disposed towards either label.

SoTA is not worth engaging on these issues. Given his self-contradictory positions, plainly fictitious personal descriptions, fundamental ignorance of basic civis, and fanatical attacks, he's either a troll account that is acting out a caricature of a hillary supporter, or he's an actual lunatic.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

You are sincerely the most fanatical person in this primary race, it would seem.

There is real rationale for leftists supporting Sanders and being critical of the Democratic establishment. There really isn't much rationale, from what I can tell, for your support of Clinton and your willingness to label every person supporting Sanders to be a CTer or libertarian-- I sure you that the leftists here such as myself who support Sanders have never been called or been ideologically disposed towards either label.

You know people make mistakes often in the heat of passion. Others are tired and jaded of being constantly attacked by Bernie fans. Sorry if I am upset at them but I have a good resson. The level of hate, anger, and rabid radicalism displayed by Sanders fans I have met in real life is appalling and by all standards digusting. From Sanders fans claiming I am scum in real life, to me witnessing Sanders white Bro fans on campus attack black people and imply they aren't "educated"which is why they don't "feel the Bern" to putting down white girls for liking Hillary.

Sanders radical fans have essentially ruined him as a candidate for me. Which is a shame but I can't hear his name and not associate it with the violent and arrogant pushy fans I have been attacked by or witnessed attacking other people. And this forum is only a taste of the Radical Sanders fans compared to Reddit, real life, or other forums I won't mention.

I can off the top of my head think of 5 posters whom I won't name. Who have been downright vicious and gang mentality towards me or any poster who dares Criticize Bernie Sanders. You often seem them liking each others posts and then name calling the person who criticized Sanders.

So yeah I apologize to you because you aren't like that. I am just a young guy a little jaded that is it. But hey if I was a Sanders fans nobody besides @Quipling would be calling me out on my behavior.

SoTA is not worth engaging on these issues. Given his self-contradictory positions, plainly fictitious personal descriptions, fundamental ignorance of basic civis, and fanatical attacks, he's either a troll account that is acting out a caricature of a hillary supporter, or he's an actual lunatic.

I am a young person who is now going to vote in my first election. I am not a troll. I am a guy finding myself and enjoy this place for legit dicussions. I am a little rabid at times I suppose but only out of annoyance from the borderline bullying I have received from Sander fans.

Also, I don't see how I have self contradictory positions. Can you give an example?

And calm it with the hate I have made mistakes. We all do but everyday I wake up I think about how I can make the world a better place and do better.

 

[Lustercross]

Who else thinks that soa could legitimately be a paid Hillary shill??

 

[speakhandsforme]

Who else thinks that soa could legitimately be a paid Hillary shill??

I think he'd be employed somewhere less narrow than the politics forum on an MMA website.

Regardless, SOA is clearly an intelligent guy. And, given his obvious intelligence and his strange allegiance to Hillary, combined with some strangely incompatible views which I have seen him espouse (he may just be a center-left economic guy and a solidly-right social guy), I'm of the personal opinion that he's probably a troll to at least some small degree. But he may not be. I'm less ardent about that likelihood than I was a couple months ago.

 

[Lustercross]

I think he'd be employed somewhere less narrow than the politics forum on an MMA website.

Regardless, SOA is clearly an intelligent guy. And, given his obvious intelligence and his strange allegiance to Hillary, combined with some strangely incompatible views which I have seen him espouse (he may just be a center-left economic guy and a solidly-right social guy), I'm of the personal opinion that he's probably a troll to at least some small degree. But he may not be. I'm less ardent about that likelihood than I was a couple months ago.

I get what you mean. He does seem smart but some of his stormfrontish posts make me cringe.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Who else thinks that soa could legitimately be a paid Hillary shill??

More like he's auditioning for a paid shill position in the Hillary campaign.

 

[Lead]

We didn't get to pick our candidates before the GE until the 70's so we actually were far more controlled previously. People forget the party's primary process isn't government regulated. The party controls it because the party chooses it's candidate. They just decided a couple decades back they would have a better candidate if they could prove to win the majority of states before a GE. The thing you should be more upset with is the party system in general. Technically, both parties have no obligation to let the people choose their candidate. Thus, every election we could be given two choices we didn't even want. I already see room to complain with the primary process itself but when you then think of what it use to be, it's kinda awful how our system is set up for president.

 

[Lead]

Got to the third paragraph before " most countries with plurality voting have more than two parties. While the United States is very much a two-party system, the United Kingdom, Canada, India and Australia have consistently had multiparty parliaments" which suggest it's more our culture than our process

We don't have run off processes so a GE with three candidates always sinks one of the established parties. The few times it doesn't are rare and usually a joke like with Ventura. Bernie even understands there is little reason to run as a Socialist candidates and he needed to win the Dem primary to be legitimized.

 

[Lead]

We aren't a democracy... Come on guys

2 Senators from Iowa represent how many people compared to 2 senators from California

Electoral college, Supreme Court life appointments, etc

And now people are whining about super delegates?

It's like getting pissed off that when car got lit on fire that it had a flat tire

Lol

We are a Republic as well. The word democracy is broadened to the point that discussing it becomes hard. The US isn't great because of democracy alone. We have that as well as strong institutions that maintain checks and balances between all groups. In a sense, I think it's completely all right that one branch (SC) isn't elected directly and also get lifetime appointments because it allows them to not rule based on what the majority supports at the time. They have to think much longer term because theirs rulings last far longer than any president or congress. It's the same situation for the Fed. I'd be very concerned if the chairman were elected by vote every few years by the public.

I think what the founders did which is becoming far more to maintain is they split power up in many different ways so it would be next to impossible to consolidate enough to control the people. You always will have states v. national control, the three branches, private industry v. government regulation, etc.

 

[Lead]

Speaking of the Democratic Primary,