 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Superdelegates - What's the point?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Little Hawk Date: 21 May 08 - 12:03 PM Yeah, I meant CC. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Ebbie Date: 21 May 08 - 01:31 AM Which BB is that, Leetle 'Awk? Is it CC? The old b is now c, is it? This world is getting too complicated for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Little Hawk Date: 20 May 08 - 06:50 PM I regard the current administration as the worst I've ever seen, BB, the worst by far, and I wish fervently to see them gone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Date: 20 May 08 - 06:34 PM Okay LH, I understand where you're coming from but here's some insider info. During Democrat regimes the EPA and the Coast Guard function to prevent and respond to oil and hazmat releases and provide forspill/release cleanup if the responsible party can't or if they've reached liability limits. During Republican regimes the EPA and Coast Guard are diverted to other missions, can't get fines to save their hides, can't get money or personnel for environmental enforcement, and where people actually attempt to do that mission get interefered with or plain dismissed. The current administration is far worse about this than under Reagan or Poppa Bush. If that ain't a great deal of difference to you, I don't know what is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Little Hawk Date: 19 May 08 - 09:32 PM You can't have no environmental regulations whatsoever, CC, because that's not an idea that would be possible to sell to the general public. It would be like having no social services whatsoever. People won't agree to that. The game has to be played so that things appear to be relatively "normal", otherwise the game breaks down. Besides, one of the key ingredients in the game is to always play both ends against the middle. So you do some stuff to make the environmentalists happy, and you do some stuff to make the business community happy, and you make sure you've got people well placed in both of those interest groups while you take care of whatever it is that you figure is really absolutely vital...like invading Afghanistan and Iraq, for example. And you never give the public the real reason why you're doing it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Date: 19 May 08 - 08:55 PM LH - The Ferrengi were based on the early industrial revolution Americas where profit was everything! Unfortunately that seems to be the idea for a great deal of Americans nowadays as well. I don't quite agree with the idea that the wealthiest and most powerful special interest groups control the parties. If that were so we'd have no environmental regulations whatsoever. The Republicans have been screaming for years that each "green" regulation costs them money, even those that prevent loss of their "material" which should lead to more profit. I think rather than doing away with the parties I'd like to see a multi-voting system in the primaries. A primary selection for who you'd really like to see elected plus a secondary vote for your next choice. I'd feel a little more connected to the whole process if at least one of my candidates made it into consideration. I hate seeing the massive amounts of money dedicated to all this foolishness as I believe that in the end the suppliers of that money have the loudest political voices. I wonder how many real problems could be solved with the application of all that campaign funding? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Little Hawk Date: 19 May 08 - 04:55 PM Yep, that's how it's done. Divide and conquer. It's as stupid as creating 2 football teams and encouraging the fans from each side to hate each other, and then complaining when they riot and fight after the game. No, wait, it's even stupider than that. ;-) Larger overall negative consequences. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 19 May 08 - 04:32 PM Wasn't it Andrew Carnegie or some robber baron who said "I can always hire half the working class to kill off the other half"? There's yer two parties, right there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Little Hawk Date: 19 May 08 - 11:17 AM What do you mean, "so long", M. Ted. ;-) I have been advising an end to the 2-party system in the USA for the last decade here, and not only that. I've been advising an end to political parties altogether. I guess you weren't reading my posts, eh? A one-party system is not good at all. Neither is a two-party system. A 3 or more party system is a slight improvement over the others, but still not so good. A multi-party system usually becomes pretty messy too. What needs to be done to clean up a political system is to do away with all the damned parties altogether and vote for individuals of NO party affiliation. It works. It works just fine. But people now would never even think of it, because they are hypnotized by the idea that you can't even have a democracy without dividing the public up into 2 or more political parties. That idea is fallacious in the extreme. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 19 May 08 - 08:57 AM That is correct. Pew Trusts aren't advocacy organizations. And? Instant runoff voting isn't intended to eliminate political parties, it is intended to break the power of the corporate duopoly, and return some power to the people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: M.Ted Date: 19 May 08 - 07:53 AM I know the Pew Memorial Trust really well, having been involved with non-profits in Philly for many years, and I know for a fact that they don't advocate getting rid of the political parties. The elimination of political parties is a fine topic for speculative fiction, but it isn't even remotely possible--so it is useless to point to it as a "solution" of any sort--which is my only point. I never said that you were an evil fringe flake, you brought that issue up yourself-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 18 May 08 - 09:00 AM It might help if people here knew (much less were capable of remembering) that Hubert Humphrey "won" the Democratic party nomination in 1968 without running in one single primary election. Not one. Back then, it wasn't about "electing" the nominee. It was all about "selecting" the nominee. From Wikipedia: "The selection of a Presidential nominee was particularly difficult for the Democrats that year because of the split in the party over the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision not to seek re-election (announced March 31), and Robert Kennedy's assassination (June 6). On one side, Eugene McCarthy, ran a decidedly anti-war campaign, calling for immediate withdrawal from the region. On the other side, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, from Minnesota, who did not participate in any primaries but controlled enough delegates to secure the nomination, called for a policy more in line with President Johnson's, which focused on making any reduction of force contingent on concessions extracted in the Paris Peace Talks. The Democrats eventually nominated Humphrey, who went on to lose the election to Richard M. Nixon. The confusion of the convention, and the unhappiness of many liberals with the outcome, led the Democrats to begin reforms of their nominating process, increasing the role of primaries and decreasing the power of party delegates in the selection process." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 18 May 08 - 08:45 AM There has been a movement for election reform building muscle and strength since the 2000 election, MTed. Because you aren't aware of organizations like Pew Charitable Trusts and their work, doesn't mean it isn't happening. You are just clueless is all. From the Pew Center on the States: "electionline.org, a project of the Pew Center on the States, is the nation's only nonpartisan, non-advocacy website providing up-to-the-minute news and analysis on election reform. Established by Pew after the November 2000 vote, electionline has become the leading source for journalists, policymakers, election officials, academics and concerned citizens to learn about, discuss and debate election administration issues." And then there is the push for instant runoff voting through organizations that introduced legislation in 10 states & got it on the ballot in 17 cities (including mine, where it passed): http://fairvote.org/ http://www.instantrunoff.com/ Instant runoff voting reforms are supported by the League of Women Voters (remember them?) In fact, even McCain and Obama have said they support such reforms. But go ahead and try and paint me as the evil fringe flake, MTed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: M.Ted Date: 18 May 08 - 02:09 AM So Little Hawk and Fantasma are going to abolish the two party system--good idea! I'm just surprised that it's taken you so long to get around to it-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 17 May 08 - 02:41 PM Yes, but would you leave the party if the situation were reversed, is the question. Clinton has party regulars and loyalists lined up with her. Obama has the extremely fickle & unreliable youth vote, and 1st time participant voters behind him. Which would you rather have going into what could be a very close election? And I note that Pew Research is reporting that there are already "informal" (code word for back room, of course) talks taking place to "fix" the Democratic primary system rules for 2012. No surprise there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: kendall Date: 17 May 08 - 02:34 PM The very idea of a super delegate infuriates me. The whole idea is anathama to democracy. I told the DNC that if Obama wins the popular vote and they give it to Hillary I will leave the Democrat party. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Little Hawk Date: 17 May 08 - 11:38 AM That would be an excellent idea, Fantasma. The grip of those two parties on the political process has got to be broken. They are the two faces of a great big scam. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 17 May 08 - 07:45 AM Deckman, I believe we are living in Tammany Hall on Steroids times. Jim, the reference I made to the party bosses in the post-McGovern Fraser era making changes were local party bosses, who continue to manipulate the process to the best of their ability on city/state levels. An excellent example from this year would be Pennsylvania and Ed Rendell. We'll soon find out how hard Gov Rendell will work for the Obama campaign. There may have been minor changes made to the national party process, but I'm not aware of what they would be. But the major party rules changes I was referring to were the McGovern Fraser Commission changes. Nothing as sweeping as those rules changes have been made since. But manipulation of the party rules at the state & local levels continues unabated, as this year's primary/caucus fiascos well demonstrates. At the time, I was all for the changes. Now, I'm not so sure it was the right direction to go, obviously, because it still puts the party bosses in change of who wins and who loses, not the voters. But rather than local party bosses having all the power, it simply shifted to the national party bosses having all the power. Democratic voters this year, especially new voters to party, don't seem to get the fact that there are pledged delegates and the so-called "super delegates", and that the super delegates are party of the party boss system and could override the will of the pledged delegates, who represent the voters. I say the system ought to be that we get rid of the parties all together--in terms of what we the taxpayers fund regarding elections--and move to an instant runoff voting system. Parties could still play their Machiavellian games through their own primary system/nominating process/conventions, but they wouldn't get a dime of taxpayer money to do it. HUGE sums of federal tax dollars are currently used to subsidize the two party system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Little Hawk Date: 16 May 08 - 06:43 PM Yes, that's correct, M. Ted. They always have been in control. And that is exactly the problem we face. The problem has gotten worse lately because we are facing the formation of larger and larger corporate monopolies. The more centralized and powerful these monopolies grow, the less possibility there is of avoiding a worsening of the social situation in a moral sense. Do you know who the Ferengi are and what their philosophy is? Do you think it's a worthy philosophy on which to build a society? I don't. Do you think it's the only way possible? I don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: M.Ted Date: 16 May 08 - 12:44 PM LH said: "What I am saying is that the political process itself has been corrupted by the controlling power of the largest special interest groups who have the most money. They are controlling the process from the top down." The "largest special interest groups who have the most money" are always in control, and have always been in control. When someone else managed to get control, in a relatively short time, they either have the most money, and the support of the largest special interest groups, or they are out--We have evolved an idea about minority rights--which, at least on a good day, limits the amount of power that the people in power have over the ones who are not in power. But that's only on a good day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Jim Dixon Date: 16 May 08 - 08:58 AM Fantasma: Wikipedia says:
The reason I ask is that I had the impression the McGovern-Fraser changes were still in effect. At least I believe they are here in Minnesota. Maybe it varies on a state-by-state basis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: balladeer Date: 16 May 08 - 08:10 AM PLease see my thread titled What Else Can I Do?. It's about a song about the importance of voting. No matter how evil and corrupt we find politics to be, the right to vote is the single instrument we have for affecting the process, short of going way out on a limb and being elected to office. With the vote in your possession, you can form a voting bloc, gather like-minded citizens together and use your voting privilege en masse to pressure your representatives to act on your behalf. It isn't perfect. These days it's all up hill, but if we don't wade into the political fray, how can we hope for change in the status quo? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Deckman Date: 15 May 08 - 09:30 PM Dave: "Politics is Revolution." A very interesting story and quite believable. And it also emphisises my point that, by definition, politics is a VERY DIRTY business. And this is why so many of us out here, my friends and neighbors, don't want to touch politics with a hundred foot pole. We've got standards here in Everett! As I said before ... we're not far at all from the days of Tamminy hall. Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 15 May 08 - 06:04 PM Jim, google "McGovern Fraser Commission". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 15 May 08 - 05:58 PM For many years I worked for a Federal District Court judge who was a rock-ribbed conservative Republican. He had been the state Republican chairman in the 1952 election. You should understand that the judge was a Taft man, but he ran the state Republican party loyally for the party's nominee, and was able to carry Indiana for Eisenhower. Two years later Eisenhower appointed him to the federal bench over Eisenhower's objection because the judge had been stubbornly for Taft right down to the end in the convention! That's right. Read it again. Then proceed. The two Republican Senators got solidly behind the judge and insisted, and pulled every string available to them, reminding Eisenhower of the yeoman service in the trenches during the election. However, the Indianapolis Star (an extreme conservative Republican paper if there ever was one) carried on a bitter vilification program against the "upstart, incompetent, dishonest" judicial candidate, with repeated front page editorials against him, directed by the publisher, in Arizona or New Mexico, and many of them written by the publisher personally. This even though both that publisher and the then candidate were conservative Republicans. As you may know, GREAT deference is normally paid to views of the President's party's Senator(s) (both of them in this case) in the state involved for a federal appointment. Eisenhower's arm was finally twisted, and he made the nomination. The judge, head bloody but unbowed and victorious, took the bench in 1954. He was almost universally admired on the bench for his legal scholarship, work ethic, and fairness. Even lawyers who violently disagreed with the judge's politics and social outlook were frank to say that "I learned how to try a case from the Judge". You're probably wondering what this little story has to do with this thread. The answer is a quote from the judge, (who knew where the political bodies were buried, so to speak, maybe because at one time he had a hand in burying them there): "Politics is revolution." It's worth remembering and quoting that statement, in looking at political goings-on. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Little Hawk Date: 15 May 08 - 05:11 PM It's not that I think of all the older more conservative Democratic Party individuals as being corrupt. What I am saying is that the political process itself has been corrupted by the controlling power of the largest special interest groups who have the most money. They are controlling the process from the top down. You cannot run a successful campaign without massive funding and massive media coverage of a positive sort, and you can't get the massive funding or the media coverage I speak of without the favor of those special interest groups: the major corporations, the pharmaceutical industry, the oil industry, the nuclear industry, the arms industry, the insurance companies, etc....and all of those huge entities are working for their own profit, not for the general good of human beings or society. In my opinion. Their gospel, after all, is to maximize their profits, and that's exactly what they are doing. The government is supposed to be their regulator, but in truth it is their handmaiden. Or their puppet. Either label works fine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: PoppaGator Date: 15 May 08 - 02:51 PM My first presidential vote was for McGovern in 1972. I was only a few days too young to vote in the 1968 election, when the voting age was 21 (my b-day is 11/8/47). By '72 the voting age had been lowered from 21 to 18 so I was suddently well over the minimum age. I definitely believed that the older, more traditional, more conservative members of the Democratic party were wrong in comparison to us young enlightened peaceniks, but I did not, and still do not, characterize such disagreement as "corruption." I think that some of us need to consider this point of view. Sure, it's OK to privately believe that we're right and all those many other people who disagree with us are being duped by Big Biz and Big Media ~ but that's our opinion, and politics is about working out compromises and commmon objectives among citizens with differing opinions. I believed back in 1972 (and had been believing for several years) that my deeply-held convictions were not shared by a majority of the population, and I was in fact pleasantly surprised when the "peace" candidate won a major-party nomination. Of course, the results of that general election pretty much demonstrated that most Americans were NOT persuaded by the McGovern platform. (I'm sure that Nixon's dirty-trickery had a lot to do with the huge proportion of that's year's Democratic defeat, but that could not have been the whole story.) While there might be a sense in which it is accurate to characterize the institution of the "superdelegates" as a 1984 "reform" measure, a more nuanced view consists in realizing that, for well more than a century prior to the 1970s, ALL delegates to EVERY nominating convention of BOTH parties (and to the Electoral College, too, for that matter) were "insiders" who pretty much met the definition of today's "supers." There was a very brief recent period during which the Democratic Party suddenly and thoroughly turned over its reins to whoever came out of a set of state elections and/or caucuses, and then, quickly thereafter, there was a movement (and a common agreement) that it would be better to backtrack just a bit and reserve some seats and votes for the kind of established loyalists who formerly had held all the seats and votes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Jim Dixon Date: 15 May 08 - 01:01 PM Fantasma (or anybody else): Can you enlighten me about what sort of rule changes you are referring to? Or can you point me to any articles that explain in more detail? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Little Hawk Date: 15 May 08 - 09:34 AM Oh, indeed, it works masterfully well to achieve its objectives. I guess we have a different definition of the word "corruption". ;-) To me it doesn't mean a system that is necessarily inefficient, but rather one that is morally bankrupt. Most of the moral bankruptcy in the world comes about due to the search for two things: more money, more power. Money junkies and power junkies are at the top of the political and financial pyramid, and they determine the agenda for all the worker levels below, most of which are filled with ordinary people who are simply trying to support themselves and do their job as best they can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 15 May 08 - 07:37 AM You are right on the mark, MTed. The sole purpose of the changes to the Dem party rules was to keep the FDR New Dealers and their political descendants out of power in the Democratic party. The rules changes were made to create a situation where progressives couldn't do what they did in 1972, ever again. So the set up of the Democratic party works perfectly well for those it serves--the wealthy elite who bankroll the Dem political machine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: M.Ted Date: 15 May 08 - 06:32 AM "I think the system is corrupt because it is controlled by huge financial interests who determine public policy for their own monetary benefit, not for the good of the general public." That's not really what corruption is--a corrupt system is an ineffective one--this system functions very well, just not for your goals-- it because serves the financial interests and not the ones that you think it should serve--and I don't disagree with you on that point-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 May 08 - 06:18 PM Yes, well, there are those who say that washing is useless too...you just get dirty again! ;-) But we're smarter than those sort of people, aren't we, Bill? (grin) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Bill D Date: 14 May 08 - 06:14 PM There are those who regularly proclaim: 'Voting is useless...it is all controlled by 'them' anyway..' ...or words to that effect. To those who say that..does the phrase "self-fulfilling hypothesis" mean anything to you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 May 08 - 03:28 PM I do think that the system is corrupt, M.Ted, but not for any of the reasons you have just cited. ;-) I think the system is corrupt because it is controlled by huge financial interests who determine public policy for their own monetary benefit, not for the good of the general public. You are quite right that there is much negotiation and compromise, in any case, quite aside from the corruption. Yes there are many players in the system and they negotiate and compromise with one another. Naturally. They're all aiming for the best deal they can get from their own point of view. This is just as true in a den of thieves as it is in an assembly of honest men. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: M.Ted Date: 14 May 08 - 03:12 PM DaveO and PoppaGator, particularly, are giving remedial civics lessons here--and they haven't yet gotten into what the idea that "All politics are local" really means, or how, in spite of appearances to the contrary, our political parties and our government are based on cooperation--and the processes of compromise and negotiation, also despite appearances to the contrary, are the tools by which cooperation is achieved. The problem that a lot of folks have is, they don't like the idea that the other guy often wants something different than what they want, so if he gets it, or some part of it, they tend to think that the system is "corrupt"-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Wesley S Date: 14 May 08 - 12:25 PM M Ted - Please enlighten us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 May 08 - 11:54 AM Bee-Dub, what you say about financing is correct if private individuals are allowed to finance campaigns and buy airtime for their campaign. But that's not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting a system where ALL campaign financing MUST come only from a public fund...not from private donors or party coffers or corporate donors but from a neutral public fund, and it must be distributed fairly and equally among ALL the candidates. That eliminates all corruption and lobbying right there. Every candidate would get exactly the same amount of funding and exactly the same amount of airtime through those public funds. A campaign would necessarily be a whole lot shorter, tremendously less expensive than it is now. Hell, it would probably cost 1 % of the money that is spent now on campaigns. There's a saving for you! It would involve all the candidates getting an equal amount of airtime to speak individually, presenting their ideas to the public...and to participate in open debates with one another...probably 3 to 5 such all-candidate debates would suffice to fully cover the issues. You could have one such televised debate a week, and that would give people time to think it all over. Such a campaign would not need to last longer than a month or 6 weeks, which would be plenty of time for each candidate to get his or her message out to the voters. So, you see, I am proposing a radically different approach to what you have at present, not just some minor tinkering with it. In Canada we have national elections, and the entire campaign is limited to 6 weeks. It's more than enough, let me tell you! Everybody's had plenty of it by the 6 week mark. It's simply ludicrous how long an American presidential campaign goes on, and how much division and bad feeling is caused in the electorate during that time. It basically derails your government and society for a whole year. That's insane. And it's completely unnecessary to boot. The only reason Americans put up with such utter nonsense is that they've become used to it, and they don't know any differently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: M.Ted Date: 14 May 08 - 11:30 AM I suppose I shouldn't be, but I am truly surprised at how little folks here understand about how the political system works, or for that matter, how their government works-- There are a few here who know what they're talking about, but most of you have no idea what's going on. In the back of my mind, given that folkies have figured strongly in the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, the environmental movement, etc, etc, that many of you'd have that cynicism that comes from years of experience, but at least you'd understand the process-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: Wesley S Date: 14 May 08 - 09:03 AM But now that the party system is in place you're not going to see it just disappear. They are entrenched and they plan to stay that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Superdelegates - What's the point? From: CarolC Date: 14 May 08 - 12:05 AM I think a party-free system can work if we would have public funding for campaigns, and only allow candidates to use money from the public funds. |
|
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. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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. |
