2016 Postmortem

cheapdate

(3,811 posts)

63. Thank you for that.

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:05 PM

Aug 2015

Maybe I already know what you think and maybe I don't. I'm not sure.

If I've got it right, you say that independent states with the explicit authority to establish internally consistent, constitutionally sound, and democratic processes for determining who shall be their choice for national leader is inherently unfair and "anti-democratic" if those states don't all go about it the same way.

Anyway, I agree with you that we've beat this thing to death.

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:

What's this "superdelegate" thing? [View all] sibelian Aug 2015 OP

It varies by state HassleCat Aug 2015 #1

But how does that affect the result? sibelian Aug 2015 #2

Each has one vote as a delegate. It's just that they are not bound MineralMan Aug 2015 #4

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

Thanks! RKP5637 Aug 2015 #15

It's not so much "special powers." They can just vote for whom they MineralMan Aug 2015 #17

Thanks for the additional information MM! RKP5637 Aug 2015 #21

In practical terms HassleCat Aug 2015 #12

Frankly, the delegate count situation you propose seems to me to MineralMan Aug 2015 #20

I agree HassleCat Aug 2015 #22

Actually, the 2008 convention was pretty weird, MineralMan Aug 2015 #24

Think Orwell. Some votes are more equal than other votes. Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2015 #3

Maybe we could have "supervoters" as well tularetom Aug 2015 #6

Just thinking about it, seems "Citizens United" has done just that, and was clearly a death call for RKP5637 Aug 2015 #10

... tammywammy Aug 2015 #5

....... "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

OK. sibelian Aug 2015 #37

It's just how our government is ordered. cheapdate Aug 2015 #39

I see. sibelian Aug 2015 #41

The United States is a federal system, cheapdate Aug 2015 #43

"Local control can be preferable to central control for a variety of reasons." sibelian Aug 2015 #48

I'm simply describing it and not justifying it. cheapdate Aug 2015 #50

Well, fair enough, but my goodness... sibelian Aug 2015 #51

There are various proposals to amend the U.S. constitution cheapdate Aug 2015 #58

OK, I will not argue the toss... sibelian Aug 2015 #60

Thank you for that. cheapdate Aug 2015 #63

sorry, tammy, I shoud probably have just gone and looked... sibelian Aug 2015 #8

After McGovern lost the election sadoldgirl Aug 2015 #11

.... magic people with giant votes. sibelian Aug 2015 #16

I probably shouldn't be too critical sibelian Aug 2015 #18

They are the Holy Shit Jessie Jackson could win this Warren Stupidity Aug 2015 #13

OK, that made me chuckle. But as another poster pointed out, I think it originated in the 70s to Metric System Aug 2015 #19

+1 nt Zorra Aug 2015 #52

They only exist to decide a close primary like 2008. DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #23

OK. sibelian Aug 2015 #26

Elaborate DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #28

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. sibelian Aug 2015 #35

This is how Mr. Obama became the .......... mrmpa Aug 2015 #25

That...is... sibelian Aug 2015 #27

Some states have primaries...Some states have caucuses... DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #30

"...if she did not fight this commitment..." sibelian Aug 2015 #33

Many posters here are under the mistaken impression that you can win the nomination with a plurality DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #38

That is NOT the issue I was reacting to, DemocratSinceBirth. sibelian Aug 2015 #40

What is your question? DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #42

Here's a better question sibelian Aug 2015 #47

Not true. MohRokTah Aug 2015 #45

! sibelian Aug 2015 #53

Prior to 1972 1939 Aug 2015 #29

That is the BEST explanation and history of the super delegates Le Taz Hot Aug 2015 #49

The great elders of the Democratic Leadership were recognized by the Gods HereSince1628 Aug 2015 #32

And, lo, the Great Blue Wall was patrolled forever sibelian Aug 2015 #34

The whole thing sounds like some weird fantasy cooked up by MANNY. sibelian Aug 2015 #36

By a margin of 67 to 26 superdelegates prefer Hillary on Bongos compared to Bernies Singing HereSince1628 Aug 2015 #46

It's what you cling to AgingAmerican Aug 2015 #44

Well. THAT's bad. sibelian Aug 2015 #54

In 2008, Superdelegats voted: Barack Obama 562.5, Hillary Clinton 211.5 they did not affect electio Agnosticsherbet Aug 2015 #55

"The chance of them having any affect on the election is quite remote." sibelian Aug 2015 #56

They are really there to tip the nomination should nobody get the required 50%+1 MohRokTah Aug 2015 #57

They are also there to blunt the effectiveness of an insurgent candidate. Adrahil Aug 2015 #62

It is the powers that be antidemocracy emergency escape hatch TheKentuckian Aug 2015 #59

Just in case the people don't agree. mmonk Aug 2015 #61