The whole system was crafted for a time before the internet at 500 channels of television, when the average American voter was out of touch with the minutia of candidates campaigns and platforms. Superdelegates, the Electoral College... all of it needs to go. It is unfathomable that the American people need an elitist class of "knowledgeable" voters to protect them from electing Hitler.

A political party that does not respect the will of the people should not expect the support of the people

Tommy Moo: It is unfathomable that the American people need an elitist class of "knowledgeable" voters to protect them from electing Hitler.

It's interesting how you're using the words "American people" as an exact synonym for "the Democratic party."

She seems like she is less informed about the race than a lot of Farkers...scary. I know I probably shouldn't read too much into her comments, though.

That's the way the system was set up. It rarely causes a problem, but when it does, well, you get this.

Might be time to change that system.

It's very common for the extreme left and the extreme right to not trust the will of the people and think that they know what's best for us.

Pocket Ninja: Tommy Moo: It is unfathomable that the American people need an elitist class of "knowledgeable" voters to protect them from electing Hitler.

It's interesting how you're using the words "American people" as an exact synonym for "the Democratic party."


read how he included the Electoral college too

Pocket Ninja: It's interesting how you're using the words "American people" as an exact synonym for "the Democratic party."

The Electoral College is in the general election. And Republicans have superdelegates as well, they're just called "unpledged".

I hope you realize that the state electors have precisely the same power.

Tommy Moo: The whole system was crafted for a time before the internet at 500 channels of television, when the average American voter was out of touch with the minutia of candidates campaigns and platforms. Superdelegates, the Electoral College... all of it needs to go. It is unfathomable that the American people need an elitist class of "knowledgeable" voters to protect them from electing Hitler.

Thankfully, that would never be possible. again.

This just in the Democratic Party is a private organization that higher ranking members hold more power than regular members. Film at 11.

No comment from
all major Corporations
all major religions
all Senate and House committees

This explains why when I volunteered for the local NC Democratic party they told me to get bent and hung up on me.

Last night CNN mentioned Hillary won the popular vote in TX, but Obama came out with more delegates. I figure somewhere down the line that's gonna start an arguement.

TheConvincingSavant: That's the way the system was set up. It rarely causes a problem, but when it does, well, you get this.

Might be time to change that system.

I assume you're opposed to too much power in the hands of an elite Core of voters.

BobtheFascist: Last night CNN mentioned Hillary won the popular vote in TX, but Obama came out with more delegates. I figure somewhere down the line that's gonna start an arguement.

He most likely will the caucus, though. So it's not that surprising that he could come out with more delegates from the state overall. The "popular vote" was for the completely separate primary.

In Nevada he got 1 more delegate despite having fewer people caucus for him (I think). It all has to do with how the delegates are awarded, and it's not just directly from the vote percentage.

BobtheFascist: Last night CNN mentioned Hillary won the popular vote in TX, but Obama came out with more delegates. I figure somewhere down the line that's gonna start an arguement.

That's partly due to Republican gerrymandering of districts, and partly due to Obama's blowout in the evening caucus.

She already biatches about caucuses because her base is too old to stay on their feet long enough to participate, and she doesn't have the resources to go after Texas Republicans at this point.

chimp_ninja: I assume you're opposed to too much power in the hands of an elite Core of voters.

That never fails to make me chortle.

chimp_ninja: TheConvincingSavant: That's the way the system was set up. It rarely causes a problem, but when it does, well, you get this.

Might be time to change that system.

I assume you're opposed to too much power in the hands of an elite Core of voters.

Me and most of the country, yes.

BTW, does anyone know why the official Texas caucus results take so long to come in?

Mnemia: In Nevada he got 1 more delegate despite having fewer people caucus for him (I think). It all has to do with how the delegates are awarded, and it's not just directly from the vote percentage.

Problem is, what if Hillary can successfully argue that she should get the nomination because she won "the big states", and that Obama is too weak to stand up to the various attacks? Add superdelegates, dirty tricks, Florida and Michigan, and I'm slightly worries.

chimp_ninja: TheConvincingSavant: That's the way the system was set up. It rarely causes a problem, but when it does, well, you get this.

Might be time to change that system.

I assume you're opposed to too much power in the hands of an elite Core of voters.

Dude. TCS made a valid point, no need to rip on him yet. =P

TheConvincingSavant: That's the way the system was set up. It rarely causes a problem, but when it does, well, you get this.

Might be time to change that system.

Hey, that was reasonable.

I think the superdelegate thing can stay, but in a modified form: superdelegates should be activated only in the case of candidates with pledged delegates within 5% of each other. Otherwise, they stay out of the picture.

It's OK. As a Democrat, he's just not used to making a decision that actually has impact on something. Leadership is a bit foreign to him.

He's just scared a bit, that's all.

BobtheFascist: Last night CNN mentioned Hillary won the popular vote in TX, but Obama came out with more delegates. I figure somewhere down the line that's gonna start an arguement.

That's true, and if TX were a country, it would certainly be worth a controversy. But in the end, Obama will have the popular vote (certainly at least if one excludes MI) as well as the most delegates proper. So it should iron itself out.

hillbillypharmacist:
I think the superdelegate thing can stay, but in a modified form: superdelegates should be activated only in the case of candidates with pledged delegates within 5% of each other. Otherwise, they stay out of the picture.

I'm all for this if we can get Howard Dean to come out in a Power Rangers costume and scream, "SUPERDELEGATES, WE NEED YOU! ACTIVATE VOTING POWERS!!"

And then the superdelegates swoop down out of their CGI mountain hideaways.

smooshie: Problem is, what if Hillary can successfully argue that she should get the nomination because she won "the big states", and that Obama is too weak to stand up to the various attacks? Add superdelegates, dirty tricks, Florida and Michigan, and I'm slightly worries.

I'm beginning to think that the Florida thing, at least, was a Republican dirty trick from the beginning. They at least have the argument that Republicans were responsible for it. The Michigan Dems have less of an excuse, IMO.

Still, unless they stage a do-over caucus in those states, there is no way that their delegations should be seated as-is. As much as it "disenfranchises" voters to not allow those delegations, if they did seat them it would also disenfranchise voters who stayed home during those votes because they were told it wouldn't count. So Hillary absolutely should not just get those delegates as is.

The large state argument is complete BS. Obama won plenty of large states, too (Illinois, Georgia, Virginia, among others). Moreover, the fact that Hillary won some big states in no way suggests that Obama could not win those states in the general. Actually, the opposite argument is likely stronger: Hillary likely could not win the SMALL states in the general, and only has a chance in the places she could beat Obama.

We can't rule out dirty tricks, but we need to put loud and visible pressure on the superdelegates. I notice that the media is now assisting Hillary with her FL/MI tricks. Find out who the superdelegates are for your state and call them. Tell them you will be extremely angry if they overturn the will of the people.

The whole system was crafted for a time before the internet at 500 channels of television, when the average American voter was out of touch with the minutia of candidates campaigns and platforms. Superdelegates, the Electoral College... all of it needs to go. It is unfathomable that the American people need an elitist class of "knowledgeable" voters to protect them from electing Hitler.


Whereas I somewhat agree with you, do you really want the average American a real say? The same people whos lives revolve around American Idol, Britney Spears, and McDonalds? Seriously, I don't know what is more frightening; that we have no say or that we have a say.

Oh, and Godwinned in the post that came first. Well done.

... And a third part of me says to just flip a coin and not worry about it anymore.

If the fix is in, why bother voting at all?

Jubeebee: I'm all for this if we can get Howard Dean to come out in a Power Rangers costume and scream, "SUPERDELEGATES, WE NEED YOU! ACTIVATE VOTING POWERS!! YEEEEEAAAARRGH!!"

And then the superdelegates swoop down out of their CGI mountain hideaways.

Now it's perfect.

If the fix is in, why bother voting at all?


You know, I asked myself this question many times over the past 8 years, and I have decided that I am still going to vote and play the game. I have all sorts of beliefs, like prayer works, Chi, and human minds with intent can effect physical reality, so why not voting? Plus, it seems that it is a ritual strongly advocated by many, like taking off your hat during the national anthem, so in the spirit of being a team player, I will continue to vote. I just don't believe it matter one bit.

Maybe a grass-roots candidate can overcome the political machine at the convention, like they did in 1972

dletter: ... And a third part of me says to just flip a coin and not worry about it anymore.

I just imagined this scene starring Hillary.



Heads: Hillary wins
Tails: You die.

perdu: Maybe a grass-roots candidate can overcome the political machine at the convention, like they did in 1972

Of course, that is a large reason why the corporatists in the party (like the Clintons) created the superdelegate system. They don't want anyone who threatens the status quo too much to get the nom. The thing is, this time it's not like Obama is some radical candidate with no chance of getting elected. Actually, he's got a better chance than Hillary. So for them to overturn the primaries and pick her instead would really just be serving her personal ambitions more than the best interests of the party.

Mnemia: So for them to overturn the primaries and pick her instead would really just be serving her personal ambitions more than the best interests of the party.

But people will act in their personal interest too and expect a big favor if their candidate wins. It's gonna be real close....

perdu: Maybe a grass-roots candidate can overcome the political machine at the convention, like they did in 1972

McGovern 1972 is why there ARE superdelegates in the Democratic nominating process now.

perdu: But people will act in their personal interest too and expect a big favor if their candidate wins. It's gonna be real close....

I agree. But Obama can offer that too. Since I think he has a better chance of getting elected, his offer might even be stronger in that regard.

robsul82: McGovern 1972 is why there ARE superdelegates in the Democratic nominating process now.

...because he was such a failure in the general election. There is no evidence that Obama would lose in a landslide in the GE; hence there is no reason for the SD's to pull the trigger and overturn him as the people's choice.

fta:

though to her Mrs. Clinton seemed more qualified

Why the hell would anyone think this?

I love that people are like "The Superdelegates Action League of Justice is going to decide who the candidate is?!?!? ZOMG!!!11!!!"

Veeeeeerrrrry surprising that 800 superdelegates out of 4000 could sway the results. They act like they're like 20% of the final tally or something.

Or something.

Jubeebee: That's partly due to Republican gerrymandering of districts, and partly due to Obama's blowout in the evening caucus.

raises an interesting question. if a purely popular vote system was implimented, what would happen to the district system? i know they'd still exist because of the house of representatives, it wouldn't just dissolve... but i wonder if there would be a sudden reshuffling of them.

Jubeebee: hillbillypharmacist:
I think the superdelegate thing can stay, but in a modified form: superdelegates should be activated only in the case of candidates with pledged delegates within 5% of each other. Otherwise, they stay out of the picture.

I'm all for this if we can get Howard Dean to come out in a Power Rangers costume and scream, "SUPERDELEGATES, WE NEED YOU! ACTIVATE VOTING POWERS!!"

And then the superdelegates swoop down out of their CGI mountain hideaways.

howard dean and al gore jump out, put their matching rings together and shout "superdelegate powers, activate!"

/al gore takes form of tsunami wave caused by global warming

Tommy Moo: The whole system was crafted for a time before the internet at 500 channels of television, when the average American voter was out of touch with the minutia of candidates campaigns and platforms. Superdelegates, the Electoral College... all of it needs to go. It is unfathomable that the American people need an elitist class of "knowledgeable" voters to protect them from electing Hitler.

States rights, mob rule imcompatable w/ liberty, yadda yadda

dgc360: Heads: Hillary wins
Tails: You die.

I larfed

"Scary"? - It's called a Democratic Republic.

Maybe submitter should realize the government of the country he lives in.

Tommy Moo: Superdelegates, the Electoral College... all of it needs to go.

I love it when people rail against the electoral college when they really have no idea of the benefits it brings to the electoral process. At least a few of the founding fathers thought it was one of the most ingeniously designed and successful 'compromise' systems of the whole constitution.

Superdelgate =

Mnemia: Of course, that is a large reason why the corporatists in the party (like the Clintons) created the superdelegate system. They don't want anyone who threatens the status quo too much to get the nom.

Really? Explain to us then how many super delegates their are compared to pledged delegates and how often they decide things?

Because according to you, you imply that the super delegates control the process. So explain to us how they do so.

Will of People and Judgment are not mutually exclusive. eh? Why must this always be a false dichotomy? Be reasonable. Obama represents both the will of the people and the best judgment for winning in November. If you disagree with me, you're a Nazi.

Lawnchair: Superdelgate =

oooooo, that's bad I think.