Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: What's this "superdelegate" thing? [View all]sibelian
(7,804 posts)48. "Local control can be preferable to central control for a variety of reasons."
Yes, where the local control is part of a system that only affects that locality. When it's part of system that has global effects, local control is in danger of becoming a power-access distortion, not a specificity filter.
There needs to be things about the different states that makes access to power granted from those states differentiable. What is it? Does Delaware produce stupid people? Is Colorado liable to produce only novelty candidates? Does Florida need more time to think because they're all too sleepy?
????
The reason I think discrepancies between ballot laws across states is anti-democratic is because it's part of a process for a position over the entire nation, not just the individual states. The states and the nation are seperate legal entities, you don't need me to tell you that, I'm sure!
Do you not think, sir/ma'am, that you may be justifying this simply out of habit, out of familiarity with it? I am possibly not in a position to make such comments as that, as I am from a tiny country in Europe with a very old and much simpler democracy, and have not as much knowledge of the intracacies of the American electoral system as yourself, but your "local control" point seems terribly fuzzy to me.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
63 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why do we need them. Doesn't sound like a democracy to me if some are given special
RKP5637
Aug 2015
#9
It's not a democracy. It's a political party. In my native country of Canada, only party members
Metric System
Aug 2015
#14
Just thinking about it, seems "Citizens United" has done just that, and was clearly a death call for
RKP5637
Aug 2015
#10
....... "Each state has its own ballot access laws to determine who may appear on ballots..."
sibelian
Aug 2015
#7
Tennessee, where I live, has some of the least restrictive ballot access laws
cheapdate
Aug 2015
#31
"Local control can be preferable to central control for a variety of reasons."
sibelian
Aug 2015
#48
OK, that made me chuckle. But as another poster pointed out, I think it originated in the 70s to
Metric System
Aug 2015
#19
Many posters here are under the mistaken impression that you can win the nomination with a plurality
DemocratSinceBirth
Aug 2015
#38
The great elders of the Democratic Leadership were recognized by the Gods
HereSince1628
Aug 2015
#32
By a margin of 67 to 26 superdelegates prefer Hillary on Bongos compared to Bernies Singing
HereSince1628
Aug 2015
#46
In 2008, Superdelegats voted: Barack Obama 562.5, Hillary Clinton 211.5 they did not affect electio
Agnosticsherbet
Aug 2015
#55
They are really there to tip the nomination should nobody get the required 50%+1
MohRokTah
Aug 2015
#57