BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?

Subject: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Wesley S
Date: 13 May 08 - 10:02 AM

In this day and age can anyone give a good reason why we need Superdelegates? Was this process conceived by a lawyer? And is the American public about to become really hacked off at the result?

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: balladeer
Date: 13 May 08 - 10:21 AM

Whether you approve of the concept or not, one oft mentioned reason the super delegates exist is to save the party from shooting itself in the foot - sort of like an executive branch. In the present situation, many are afraid that some horrible secret from Barack's past will surface after the primaries are over and when he has all but sewed up the nomination, something so terrible it would render him a non-starter in the November election. That is when the super delegates would spring into action and throw their weight behind Senator Clinton. Hmm ... given everything we know so far about the candidates, who (I wonder) is more likely to have a nasty deal-breaking skeleton in the political closet?

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Deckman
Date: 13 May 08 - 10:51 AM

Darned good question. I have two thoughts: By "honoring" some voters with a "super voter" capacity, what does that tell us "non-super" voters? Also, I was amused to see the other day that someone has a superdelegate count of something and a "HALF"! What did they do ... cut someone in half? Oh well ... it's just politics! Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 08 - 11:04 AM

ANother reason for the superdelegate category is to provide a buffer zone to even out the "proportional allocation" counts. The Republicans generally aweard the whole State's delegate count to whoever wins the popular vote for the state. The Democrats, trying to cleave to a more nuanced and principled concept of representation, allocate delegates by popular vote proportions in a given state.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Deckman
Date: 13 May 08 - 12:04 PM

Amos ... I suspect yet another reason for the concept of SUPERDELEGATE is to have a way to reward "super democrats." Those might be demos who open their checkbooks often, or who are quite vocal in supporting demo issues.

With this election, I now am strong opponent of both political parties. I think they are corrupt to the core and I see no way that they can be cleaned up. I now refuse to give any dollar support to them. Bob Nelson

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 08 - 12:37 PM

Party politics is more important to the people of this country than good government. Superdelegates are just one example of this mindset.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 13 May 08 - 01:10 PM

The "superdelegates" are generally officfehbolders, not major contributors. Either way, of course, they're big-time insiders, but the party is able to assure us that they are at least elected officials, not faceless special-interest proxies and lobbyists.

This type of person has historically constituted the voting body at the presidenmtial nominating conventions of both major parties. Each state party has always put together its own delegation according to its own rules, which have always reflected party membership and party loyalty and perhaps a degree of correspondence with the wishes of rank-and-file party members.

The primaries and caucuses were orginally used by only a few states, but the system gradually became nationwide. It is still important to remember that the nominating process is something that each party handles ~ it's not consitutionally assigned to the federal government. State governments set the dates and bankroll the election procedures, and some of them impose greater or lesser restrictions on who the parties must recognize as voters. (That is, in most states one must be a registered member of one of the parties in order to vote in that party's primary, but a few states insist that any registered voter be allowed to vote in any primary, or that voters reginstered in neither party be allowed to vote in the primary of their choice.)

We can hate the parties all we want, or at least hate what they seem to have become, but their historical role in the nominating process cannot be denied, and if it is ever to be replaced by something else, that will be achieved only with great difficulty, by innovators with tremendous energy and imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 13 May 08 - 01:43 PM

If I'm wrong I may be corrected, but it's my understanding that the superdelegate system was adopted some time ago, before Clinton/Obama was the question.

We should remember that the primary/convention procedure is NOT really a public election; it's a party election, as to who will represent the party in an upcoming election. It is not a procedure set by federal law or the Constitution, and only in part by the state legislatures. The Constitution not only does not prescribe primary elections or how they are conducted, but it does not even envisage parties at all.

As I see it, in effect the Democratic party has set up within its own party apparatus something like a bicameral legislature, with a large, representative "lower house" and a small, elite "Senate" or "upper house".   That's not an exact parallel, of course, because they don't vote separately, but it's a concept that may be helpful in conceptualizing the whole thing.

The party has the perfect right to organize itself in that way. Whether it's wise or just, of course, is open to argu--err, discussion.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Bobert
Date: 13 May 08 - 02:00 PM

Makes for a larger circle jerk...

(Opps, that is politically incorrect...)

Ummmmm, makes for a larger party... Yeah, that works....

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 May 08 - 02:06 PM

...and like ANY setup, it can be used intelligently to settle special unforeseen situations, or stupidly, to promote special interests...

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 13 May 08 - 02:11 PM

Uncle Dave-O explained what I was trying to say, and probably did a better job.

I think it's not exactly true that "the superdelegate system was adopted some time ago," so much as that these party stalwarts were always included in the convention, but only began being called "superdelegates" as their numbers started to decline.

For many years, they were the only delegates, and it's only more recently that slates of delegates determined by primary elections and caucuses have been admitted and gradually become the majority of delegates. It's only in the light of this historical development that the party insiders who have always been part of the process have declined in numbers and been given a new description, "superdelegate."

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Deckman
Date: 13 May 08 - 02:58 PM

I appreciate the previous several explainations ...I think they are quite accurate. And I also think that these explanations prove my point that these parties ARE CORRUPT. The moment you allow anyone, or several "anyones", to have more voting power than others, that in itself is corruption.

There is very little difference between today and the Tammeny (sp?) Hall of yesterday. In my neighborhood, my friends and neighbors are mostly saying: "why bother ... it's all a phoney set up. My vote won;t be counted fairly." Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 08 - 05:20 PM

Deckman, you are so right. Both those parties are utterly corrupt, and the public should abandon both of them en masse, and kick them both out of goverment for good and start over again from scratch. They don't deserve anyone's vote. They should be done away with just like Tammany Hall.

However, that's not going to happen. ;-) Not yet. The prevailing power of rote repetition of past traditions will keep the public dutifully trooping out like sheep to vote Democratic or Republican for some time yet, I think. Most people just can't imagine life outside the 2-party mental box they were brought up in, so the farce goes on and on.

The Superdelegates are simply a way for the inner power clique of the Democratic Party to strengthen and maintain its grip on the party and control the process. Insiders rewarding each other mutually for being insiders. That's how it works in a corrupted power structure.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Deckman
Date: 13 May 08 - 05:39 PM

Little Hawk ... you may not have realized it, but you also just described how the Mafia works! Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 13 May 08 - 05:40 PM

I beg to differ: reserving seats and votes for established members who are known to be loyal to one's organization makes perfect sense for any political party.

The fact that a given party may or may not be corrupt, or unduly influenced by powerful interests, is an entirely separate consideration. For that matter, one's low opinion of the two-party system has no real bearing on the question, which is: within the current system, such as it is, what is the best and fairest way to choose the electors who will determine a party's presidential candidate?

Look: I think it would be entirely wrong for all of a party's convention delegates to be admitted on the basis of the outcomes of state primary elections, especially when the states vary so widely in how they control access to the voting booth by individuals who may or may not be actual members of the party in question.

There has been some talk about Republican citizens, and right-leaning Republican-friendly Independants, deliberately voting in Democratic primaries for the candidate they perceive as more beatable in November's general election. While it may be dificult to believe that there could ever be enough such "sabateurs" to change the result of any statewide election, there is good reason to restrict access to the primary voting booth to individuals who are registered party members, and have been so registered for longer than a day or two. for

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 08 - 05:44 PM

There are many possible ways to pick a party leader to go into an election, Poppa Gator. Are you aware of how it's done in Canada? It's a very different system to yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 13 May 08 - 06:06 PM

Poppagator said, in passing:


There has been some talk about Republican citizens, and right-leaning Republican-friendly Independants, deliberately voting in Democratic primaries for the candidate they perceive as more beatable in November's general election

Now THAT, in my opinion, is what is corrupt!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 08 - 06:30 PM

That's the kind of gameplaying you have when you have political parties. Political parties themselves are a perversion of any truly democratic process. You don't need them to have elections. You don't need them to have viable candidates. You don't need them to have a working, functioning government.

What you do need if you want a good and fair election process is nonpartisan candidates who represent a wide variety of views and who are all financed equally from a public election fund and who all get an equal amount of airtime in the media to present their views.

That would be a good and fair election process.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 13 May 08 - 06:34 PM

Which is what the Constitution and its framers envisaged.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 08 - 06:48 PM

Yeah, that's right!

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 13 May 08 - 07:13 PM

The whole "superdelegate" shit came about after the 1972 convention in Miami, when the democratic wing of the Democratic party ousted the corrupt old timers and party hacks (including King Richard's delegation from Chicago--I lived there back then), and moved the party to the left, from pretty damn far right (about where they are again today).

McGovern was the nominee that year.

The party hacks & old timers (ie the corrupt bosses, et al) immediately got together post-convention and changed the rules, effectively locking the progressive wing of the Democratic party out in the wilderness in perpetuity.

Anyone who thinks the party can now be moved to the left is seriously deluded. The superdelegate system was created to lock the left out, period.

google "1972 Democratic convention" and there will be plenty of info about the VERY exciting convention that year (height of the anti-war movement, etc).

I think I saw Willie Brown being interviewed about it recently too. He was one of the party hacks who re-wrote the rules, the bastard. I've always hated that guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 13 May 08 - 07:32 PM

OK, my bad. Last 2 be mine.

You can also google "Singer delegation" or "Illinois delegation" to get info on the 72 convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 08 - 07:36 PM

Very interesting, Fantasma. Yeah, the Democrats are basically just "Republican-light". In most other western democracies they would be seen as pretty right wing.

Kucinich was the guy they moved right quick to shut out of the debate process this time around, because he wasn't parroting the desired party line. They also tried to get him to lose his candidacy for Congress...but did not succeed in that effort so far. A lot of insider money was spent for media time to try and knock Kucinich off in Cleveland.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 08 - 07:47 PM

Preventing independents from voting in primaries ensures that the preferences of the independents (or unaffiliated, as we are called in my state) are not known by the parties. When the preferences of the independents are not known, it comes as a bigger surprise to the parties when the independents vote for the nominee of the other party.

I am unaffiliated, and I was very pleased that I was able to vote in the primary... not because my state mandates it, but because both of the parties allow it in my state. There is actually no law that dictates this either way, as far as I am aware, but the parties appear to want to get as many votes from independents as they can get here.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 13 May 08 - 07:50 PM

Well, when old time Dems say they don't want a floor fight at the convention, this is the convention they are remembering.

And the whole fiasco over unseating right wing Mayor Daley's delegation (which was all white) in favor of the left wing Singer delegation (which was integrated, and led by an African American alderman), was very much about race.

So, this whole primary season has echoes of the extremely recent past of a very racist Democratic party.

Besides McGovern running that year, George Wallace ran (and got a shit load of votes), and Humphrey.

And so the party hacks and bosses have been dragging the party further and further back into that awful past, not to mention to the far right, ever since then.

The party reformers of the time were directly confronting and challenging the authority of the racist, conservative Blue Dog Democratic party--it's power, privlege, status, wealth, and more than anything else, the party's cultural authority in US politics.

Of course, the reformers were immediately slapped down after that election, and the left has been wandering in the wilderness ever since, rudderless, leaderless and without a party to call home. Most I know haven't bothered to vote since they cast their votes for McGovern.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 08 - 07:53 PM

Perfectly understandable. They've had no one to vote for.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 13 May 08 - 07:56 PM

Yes, because the Democratic party has kept them locked out ever since.

So when the arrogant Democratic jerks started claiming Nader was a "spoiler" they just proved what hypocrits they truly were.

They all said that there was room in the tent for Nader's voters.

They are a bunch of fucking liars, of course.

There is no room for Naders voters or for Kucinich's voters in the Democratic party, because the party hacks make sure they get bound and gagged, and shoved under the stage from the gitgo.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:00 PM

Dead right.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:14 PM

Although alot of what has been said previously about the two party system is unfortunately right, I'd like to point out the probelms with the multi-party systems that seem to be used in some parts of the world. And I'm not saying our's is any better by the way.

If you have just the two parties at least you pretty much have a winner and a loser not a narrow margin winner and several also rans. Alot of countries seem to use a coalition gov't. How many of them have we seen just plain fall apart when one small section doesn't get what it wants? It's a gov't run by a bunch of dickering special interest groups! This paralizes the whole of the government and has sometimes resulted in a civil war. Look at Palestine for an example. Or Pakestan, How about Italy? Just how many different governments have the Italians had since WWII?

I think the ruckus about Nader is that he was a spoiler in the Florida election and the Republicans have never had a serious contender for their party votes in any of the elections. Bob Barr just may be the Nader equivalent.

I do agree with Poppagator on this one though. At least the supers are democrats interested in the party, not republicans looking to strengthen their chance of winning the election by corrupting the whole process.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:20 PM

I neglected to mention, the changes to the party rules actually occurred after the 1968 "the whole world is watching" convention in Chicago.

After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination.

The Fraser on the commission was the former mayor of Minneapolis.

There were tons of party hacks who refused to to work for the ticket in 1972 (just like the current Blue Dogs are doing to the Democration Congressional Campaign Committee today)--really prominent, as in mayors from Detroit, Philly, LA and I forget where all--refused to show up and be counted.

For awhile, it looked like the party was going to sink under it's own weight. But instead, what happened is they haven't been able to elect many presidents (just Carter and Clinton) in the years since that convention.

And lots of folks will tell you the only reason Carter won is because the Republicans were so detested in the post-Nixon, post-Watergate era.

Jimmy Carter beat Nixon's second VP (after his first one was tried and jailed for corruption)--the one he made sure gave him a pardon before he climbed on Air Force One the last time & flew in the sunset.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:22 PM

The Republican party claims that Ross Perot cost Bush I the election in 1992, and cost Dole the election in 1996.

OK, maybe not Dole so much. He was like, I dunno, the Dukakis of the Republican party, and was never going to be a viable candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:26 PM

Sometimes when JtS and I are talking about some of the bad things that happen in this country (or are done by the government of this country), he says whatever we are talking about would never happen in Canada, because the political system there wouldn't allow it. It's easier to remove a prime minister in Canada than it is to remove a president in the US, and for this reason, prime ministers have to work harder, and be more sensitive to the wishes of the voters, to remain in office. Sounds good to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:30 PM

I am not recommending a multi-party system, Chief Chaos. I am recommending a no-party system. I am recommending the complete end of political parties altogether by running only independent-minded and completely free and nonpartisan individuals for office, not pawns, bosses or representatives of any party machine.

It has been done, it can be done, it should be done. Parties are self-perpetuating hierarchies which very rapidly become corrupt, riddled with cronyism, and end up working only for the party insiders and the powermongers, NOT for the general public.

The political parties themselves are precisely what is wrong with the election process all over the world right now. They have turned it into a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:31 PM

No system is perfect.

I think a lot of people in Britain, in the post-Tory/post-Blair "New Labor" eras, don't think it so easy to remove their prime ministers.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:31 PM

Bush 1 cost himself the election. It's not hard to see that the apple didn't fall far from the tree here. The main difference is Bush already had the Iran Contra scandal, no war or real enemy at the time since the Berlin wall fell and the Soviet Union was also in the toilet, and a recession that makes the one at the end of the Clinto years look like a minor banking mistake.

Ross Perot wasn't taken seriously by anyone and his own choice for VP pretty much sealed the deal by looking like a fish out of water at the debates. I never expected that from a retired Admiral.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:33 PM

I'm remembering off the top of my head here, but I'm pretty sure Perot actually got around 10% of the vote in the general. Which is why independents aren't allowed into the national debates anymore.

Oh, and pardon me, the above should read "New Labour" (before the Brit henchmen get after me for not knowing how to spell properly).

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:38 PM

George Wallace took a really big chunk of the votes in one election. Every now and then the 2-party megalopoly gets shaken a bit. But without parties at all, then you could actually vote for a candidate on the basis of nothing else whatsoever than that you like his or her ideas, policies, and character better than some other candidates...and no partisan baggage whatsover to muddy up the picture. And no "strategic" voting necessary.

Wouldn't that be a refreshing change?

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Deckman
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:42 PM

Little Hawk ... GOOD GRIEF ... YOU HAVE TAKEN THE WORDS RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH! This is what I have been saying for some time now. I don't have any expectations that this will happen anytime soon, but you are exactly correct! Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:45 PM

I was wrong, Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992, after going into the debates with only 7-9% support in the polls.

Like I said, that is why the networks (who are in the back pockets of the duopoly parties) and parties refuse to allow any indies or 3rd party candidates into the televised general election debates.

People actually vote for them, and we couldn't be having that, now could we?

Like Emma Goldman said, if voting changed anything it would be illegal.

Doesn't have to be illegal, when those airwaves owned by we the people, get operated by the ruling elite, for THEIR profits at our expense, and the expense of the nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:45 PM

Thanks, Bob. ;-) I'm glad I'm not the only voice in the wilderness when it comes to this particular matter. Perhaps in another 100 years the world will see an end to this present horrendous domination of politics by the political parties...and then we might get some real democracies that actually ARE democracies. Just maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:48 PM

Too true LH! I try to vote for who I think will do the best job for the country regardless of party.

I do tend to think that the two parties in question at least answer a few dozen questions without them having to be asked such as position on abortion, guns, war, the environment, public assistance etc.

On a few other questions I have realized that the difference between them isn't quite what you would think. The biggest being the supposed tax and spend Democrats vs. the anti-tax Republicans. The truth is more along the lines of the tax and spend Democrats vs. the don't tax and spend anyway Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:58 PM

Political parties were invented specifically for the purpose of helping entrenched power hold on to that power. We didn't always have political parties in the US. Originally, there were no parties and people just voted for the individual they thought would make the best president.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Joe_F
Date: 13 May 08 - 09:20 PM

I had not heard of superdelegates till this campaign, but the idea strikes me as a sensible one. The point is to stabilize the two-party system. For each party to have a chance of winning, both parties have to compete for the center. That usually happens; but there is a risk that a party will be excessively influenced by zealots (the "base") who are essential to its morale but who cannot deliver enough votes for a victory in the general election. Then the other party has the center to itself and wins a lopsided victory -- Johnson over Goldwater in 1968, Nixon over McGovern in 1972. The existence of superdelegates -- professionals who (one hopes) care most about winning the general election -- is (I suppose) supposed to protect against that eventuality. Unfortunately, it is not a foolproof scheme. Professionals sometimes care more about preserving the party organization and/or their power in it than about winning any particular election.

What would happen if *both* parties were captured by their bases? In nasty circumstances that might lead to civil war, but in America I think it would more likely give a third party a serious chance. That might lead to the demise of one of the old parties, or to coalition government as in much of the rest of the democratic world. I do not find any of those prospects attractive. Thus, tho I myself am an extremist on many issues, I do not fancy extremists (even of my kind) taking over either party.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 13 May 08 - 10:06 PM

Carol C was partly right and partly wrong when she said:

Originally, there were no parties and people just voted for the individual they thought would make the best president.

Right: Originally, there were no parties

But wrong: and people just voted for the individual they thought would make the best president.

People did not then, and do not now (though they think they do) vote for any individual for president.

The philosophy originally was that solid, knowledgeable, honest, respected citizens (read "big propertyowners") should be made members of an Electoral College, which would deliberate and decide on the best man.   The Constitution doesn't say how the Electors are to be elected/appointed, but in the earliest days it was usual for the respective state legislatures to elect/appoint the Electors, just as they elected/appointed Senators at first. Over a period of time more and more states set up caucus systems and primaries to do that.

But in the early days the ordinary citizen did not in any way vote for say John Quincy Adams or Jefferson.   And this November none of the citizenry will actually vote for McCain or Clinton or Obama; they will vote for a set of Electors pledged to one or another of those worthies.

What's more, the Electoral College will never meet as a single body. They send their votes in on paper. I forget who tabulates those votes.

The no-parties, best-man for the job philosophy sounds salutary, high-minded, and all that, but it's never had much (if any) of a try, and I don't think it ever will.

The fact is that no public official of any significance is an individual. An individual aspirant to office cannot either run a campaign alone or execute the office alone if elected. A significant public officeholder is a team, with friends, debts, pledges, alliances. A President without significant support in Congress will be a failure in office, no matter how moral, intelligent, honest, energetic, etc. (s)he may be. What we call parties are mechanisms for building the networks of connections that make government possible.

To say, "I don't pay attention to the parties; I vote for the best man," is to reveal an appalling misunderstanding of what it takes to hold and exercise public office.

I say again: No significant public official is an individual!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 08 - 10:22 PM

Of course! A government is (and absolutely should be) composed of the efforts of many, many individuals, many public "servants" working together in a common purpose.

In the nonpartisan system I propose as an alternative to the present one, many, many individuals would be elected to serve in that government, and together they would run it. It's not just a question of "voting for one individual". You would probably vote for one or more individuals in your immediate locality, another one (or more) in your region or state, and another one (or more) at the federal level....as would other people. This would result in a government run not by one individual, but by many.

You are right about how the electoral system works, Dave, but...most Americans are certainly under the very strong impression that when they cast their vote for a presidential candidate they are voting for that individual...not for a group of electors.

And that impression is greatly fostered and harped upon by the entire mass media through the cult of "good presidential material" personality worship that is pounded out 7 days a week in order to get people to go out and vote. Then the electoral college decides the result!

That's highly ironical.

Your system pretends to be something other than what it really is. It pretends to be a system with one individual who is the "leader", the "commander in chief". Might as well call him the Great White Father, as the Native people were told to call him.

You're saying it's not like that. Yeah! I'm saying you're right. It isn't. But it pretends to be all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 08 - 10:23 PM

I think you misunderstood me, Dave. My point was that it was individuals, not parties, that were being voted for. I didn't mean to imply that any person who wanted to could vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Deckman
Date: 13 May 08 - 10:31 PM

What you said Dave is true. And that's part of the reason that so many people I run in to, here in Washington state, have given up trying to vote. They see it as a great fraud and a wasted effort. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 13 May 08 - 10:54 PM

...without parties at all, then you could actually vote for a candidate on the basis of nothing else whatsoever than that you like his or her ideas, policies, and character better than some other candidates....

I think you're being a bit too idealistic there, Little Hawk. The two-party system may be corrupt, but a party-free system in today's society would result in a true oligarchy. People are not going to vote for the candidate with the best ideas. They're going to vote for the one who spends the most money. Currently, that means the one who can raise the most money through his party's fund-raising structure. Do away with that structure and it becomes the one with the most money of his own to throw into a campaign. If you think political power is bought and sold under the two-party system, do away with it and you'll have nothing but the ultra-wealthy who can afford to fund their own campaigns running for office. If you think it would open the door for genuine progressives like Ralph Nader, forget it. It would only open the door even wider for people like Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, and Mitt Romney.

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 May 08 - 11:27 PM

"What is a Superdelegate in the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination? What is the history behind the awarding of these delegates?

"A "superdelegate" is a party leader, an elected official or otherwise, who is made an automatic delegate at the party nominating convention. This person is not required to win his or her place in a primary or in a caucus. They have a spot at the convention no matter what.

"The so-called superdelegate was created as a "reform" within the Democratic nominating process for the 1984 elections. Party leaders felt that the process had gotten away from them and was overly geared to primary voters and caucus-goers."


http://texasliberal.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/history-of-the-superdelegate/

Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 13 May 08 - 11:57 PM

Having superdelegates is the only way I know to make sure that a political party has some consistency and continuity from one election to the next.

If you don't know how this could be a problem, consider what happened to the Reform Party.

Ross Perot founded the Reform party in 1995. Its only winning candidate was Jesse Ventura as governor of Minnesota in 1998. Jesse Ventura was a centrist, a conservative on economic issues and a liberal or libertarian on social issues.

When Pat Buchanan decided to run for President in 2000, he quit the Republican Party and joined the Reform Party. His opinions were light-years away from Jesse Ventura's. He was far right across the board. Yet there was nothing anybody could do to stop him from taking over the Reform Party.

According to Minnesota law, a Republican is whoever shows up at a Republican Party caucus; a Democrat is whoever shows up at a Democratic Party caucus; and so on. If someone shows up whose opinions are diametrically opposed to everything your party has ever stood for, you can't kick them out or deny them the right to vote; all you can hope to do is outvote them.

This is not likely to be a problem for Republicans or Democrats, but it was devastating for the Reform Party. People who had never voted for Perot or Ventura, who had never attended a Reform Party caucus before, and possibly didn't know or care what the Reform Party stood for, suddenly showed up at Reform Party caucuses only because they liked Pat Buchanan, and Pat Buchanan had said he wanted to run for the Reform Party's endorsement. There were enough of them to overwhelm the opposition.

Buchanan eventually received only 0.4% of the national popular vote. (Perot had received 19% in 1992 and 9% in 1996.) Buchanan essentially destroyed the Reform Party by taking it over. Both Perot and Ventura quit the party over Buchanan's candidacy. Ventura helped found the new Independence Party and Perot endorsed George Bush.

The only thing I can think of that might have prevented Buchanan from taking over the Reform Party would be if the party had had enough superdelegates—that is, people who had been elected as delegates before the 2000 caucuses.

If you have ever considered supporting a third-party candidate, you ought to consider whether this could happen to your party.