Criticism of the Superdelegate system?

It seems like the superdelegate system is not the most democratic way to go about selecting our nominee. Does anyone have some history on how this came about? What are some of the pros and cons for this?

I see nothing wrong with the Party itself having some say in who they want as their nominee. No where is there a claim that the selection of the Party nominee has to be solely based on the votes of the citizens. I see no problem with having party insiders, who generally know a hell of a lot more about who would be the best choice than most of the public would, with having some sort of voice int he selection process. See this post for more:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4515423&mesg_id=4515719

:puke:

You're a waste of time.

Bye, dude.

Don't put the 'insult mode' on me pal, with all due respect.

If the party's going to go to all the trouble of holding primaries and caucuses, so the voters get the say as to who gets to be the nominee, that democratic election should be sacred. Giving party insiders the ability to override a democratic election after wheeling and dealing in a smoke-filled room is just blasphemous.

You all are acting as if we're in a situation where we only started with two candidates, then one was more popular by like 70% to 30%, yet the party is going to forsake the voice of the people and choose the 30% candidate anyway. That's a crock of shit.

We start out with a huge field of candidates. The public weeds out those candidates one by one, and in the end you are left with a handful. Generally, one emerges as a clear victor. In this case neither will probably emerge as a victor as it relates to the voice of the people, and it would be clear that BOTH candidates are supported by the public as good candidates for our party, or one of them would've run away with it a bit more. There is nothing wrong then, in such a close match, of having party insiders have a vested interest in which of the two is the stronger candidate, and helping to have them chosen as such. This whole 'voice of the people' argument is ludicrous. The voice of the people have been more than voiced and continue to be. That's why kucinich is out, why Biden is out, why Edwards is out, etc. But in the end, the voices of the people may be so evenly split as to who the true nominee they want is, that the superdelegates have to use their own influence to pick the best one for the party.

I see nothing wrong with that. The primaries exist to choose a candidate for the general election. Power is given to the people to help choose who that should be. They whittle down the field and in the end have two strong candidates that are both supported by the voice of the people. Having insiders to the party that are FAR MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE as to who the best candidate would be assist in then choosing the one to be nominated, is perfectly fine in my opinion.

But I can't stand how some people keep trying to put forth this bullshit concept that the voice of the people would be thwarted. What silliness. You're acting like the rest of the field had never been whittled down, like there were just two candidates from the start, that there was a CLEAR distinction of one over the other being the choice of the people, and that the SD's are going to snub their noses at that. But that isn't the case. Your argument is ridiculous.

I don't really think that this comes down to party officials being more knowledgeable, but a lot of these superdelegates are going to be giving their support based on repayment of political favors. If neither candidate has the 2000+ or whatever it takes to get the nomination the thing that pushes them over the top could be the support of people who the Clinton machine has been connected to for the last 16 years. That is a concern to me.

"Having insiders to the party that are FAR MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE as to who the best candidate would be assist in then choosing the one to be nominated, is perfectly fine in my opinion."

That's French for "The people can't be trusted to vote for the correct candidate, so the nobility has to do it for them." Yeah. Reeeeal democratic there.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That's too much!

Hey, hey, I'll tell ya what: If you want to use that line of reasoning, then, uh, how ya feel about using caucuses in Presidential elections huh? How do you feel about the Presidential election being held on all different days and different months in each state huh?

:rofl:

On second thought, don't. Smileys used to make an argument only emphasize the fact that you're an idiot.

Read my previous reply again, and mentally answer the questions posed to you. Maybe then you'll realize why the question is such an absurd one.

Second, edit out retarded if you have any sensitive nerve in your body.

Third, I read your reply and it's clear you miss the suppressive role in both the Electoral College and superdelegate system.

Now, are you able to converse without an inept attempt at a pissing contest?

retarded notion that you can compare the nominee process to the actual Presidential election process. I say to you again: Read my initial reply to you and mentally answer the questions posed. After you do, I'm hoping that you'll understand why it's such a retarded question.

And your use of retarded is as obnoxious as your personality.

context here? It's like you are just in some sort of bubble and the points haven't already been made.

If you're not going to address the inherent flaws in your logic, then there really isn't anything else to discuss here.

Do you support the the Electoral College system?

It was established for much the same reason the superdelegates were established: to brake what the established power considers democracy gone amok. It's a very simple notion.

You, however, are free to take your smileys and leave.

The primaries are for the party to decide. The parties are not really much different than any other kind of club that has membership. After our club has worked out our internal deliberations then we put those people up for the entire country to decide on. America is not a club and has no membership qualifications other than the obvious (citizenship, age). I hope I'm making some sense here. I'm trying to do two things at once.

"Percentage wise, 0.000007% of the voting population has 19.6% voting power in the 2008 Democratic Primary."


That should be sufficient evidence that the use of superdelegates is contrary to the principles of democracy.



As for your contention that "...party insiders, who generally know a hell of a lot more about who would be the best choice than most of the public would...", do you actually support taking nearly 20% of the decision-making out of the hands of the people and putting it in the hands of a few wealthy, politically connected people?

:scared:

It's a stupid system

because they didn't want voters to be able to decide themselves. Democracy scares the people in charge.

from the San Francisco Chronicle that addresses a bit of the issue. It gives the Party some control.

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/diaz/

Mz Pip
:dem:

They aren't gonna decide this. They know how nasty that would end. They ARE elected officials and party organizers - they want to win. And they can read the polls. If Obama has the lead and polls show he's the clear favorite in beating McCain they will back Obama, regardless who've they've pledged.

More importantly, I think the candidates will see this. We all talk about how much each candidate wants to win, but both know they are dead if its clear they will divide the party.

If Obama doesn't win any of the big states and is behind on either the popular vote or the delegate count, he probably will drop out. Likewise, if Hillary is behind on the states and delegate count, she'll drop out.

Bottom line, I just don't buy that the doomsday scenario will happen.

If the belief is that they will follow the wishes of the people, then why is that being skewed by calling them ahead of the convention?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4261986&page=1

I think that some of the Superdelegates are giving their support based on repayment of past political favors.

Shades of 2000 and having to realize that my vote didnt matter for shit. No wonder why so many people dont bother to vote.

it would be much more efficient and quicker

I don't believe that our electoral process should come down to the speed of the process.