superdelegate

[lazygood4nothinbum]

how would a superdelegate-override of the primary electorate play out in american politics? has it ever occurred whereby superdelegates did not reflect the will of the people? would it harken back to bush v gore? if a superdelegate vote pushed hillary over the top, would it disenfranchise african-american voters? (i realize i'm generalizing on that, but it seems an obvious question.) would it erode the cohesiveness of the democratic party? your thoughts...

[Rustic23]

If the super delegates are not independent to vote however they wish, then why have them? Is it just a way to reward party regulars and insure they get a ticket to the convention?

As far as disenfranchise the African-American voters, if they vote for Obama, would they disenfranchise the female voters? Seems to me the Democrats set up a system that ask the public 'Who do you want' and then ask the party leaders 'Who do you want'. For what ever reason they may not answer the same.

Say one candidate is irritating as H&ll while the other is smooth as Heaven. The public, by a cat's whisker, picks the one. However, the professionals know he or she has a high probability of being defeated in the General election. What are they to do, vote with the populace and risk loosing or go with a winner.

[samclem]

Clearly each party can set up whatever rules they want, including the establishment of super-delegates, super-duper delegates, maybe delegates apportioned by ethnicity or religious affiliation. I don't think there any legal/constitutional issues concerning the means used to select the party nominee.

As I understand it, the Democratic Party chose to have these super-delegates for precisely the reason outlined by Rustic23--to allow the powerful upper echelons to tweak the system in order to select the most electable candidate if the popular voting was relatively close. We'll see how well that works. Clinton, for all her baggage and high "negatives" with many people, is a known quantity who is far less likely to go disastrously off-course in some unpredictable way. She's a safer bet, and Democratic Party "Lifers" and big-money folks prefer safe bets.

If Obama wins the popular vote and Hillary is the party's nominee, then one would expect there to be quite a backlash among his supporters. Likewise (but to a lesser degree) if Hillary wins by virtue of getting the Michigan and Florida results included despite the earlier agreements. McCain might win some of these people (though probably fewer if Obama is offered and accepts the position as Hillary's running mate).

I don't know if African-American voters would abandon the Democratic party-they've been taken for granted for a long time and yet they stay aboard. Still, this could be the real wake-up call. It might even set the stage for the right dynamic young black Republican to make some headway on the national scene. I don't know who that would be, but I'm sure there's somebody out there..

Won't it be great when race doesn't matter anymore? We're getting there, but far too slowly.

[jambo101]

I saw a piece on CNN not too long ago where Wolf Blitzer was grilling super delegate John Kerry who was representing Massachusetts,Even though the state voted for Clinton he was putting his vote to Obama:confused:,I never did hear the rest of the story but if he can do something like this it kinda takes something away from democracy.
I think the electoral college have similar powers when voting for the president.

[Texarkandy]

When evaluating this we have to remember the parties can have whatever nominating mechanism they wish - it's a "private" nominating process & not a public election.

As to disenfranchisement - it has not always been the case in this country of "one man - one vote" - in the early days only property owners voted in many locales - and of course they had the "white male" thing too which I agree was wrong.

However, (let me put on my tin-foil hat for a minute) I wonder that everyone's vote should count the same - I wonder if more weight shouldn't be given to the votes of those who actually pay income taxes, pay property taxes, are active military or honorably discharged veterans, etc.

I've heard there's a good book out there (haven't read it yet) on the death of democracies wherein the vote-enfranchised have-nots always eventually manipulate the system to transfer wealth to themselves via government power & thus destroy the economy.

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambo101 it kinda takes something away from democracy. I think the electoral college have similar powers when voting for the president.

this is just what i was thinking when i came up with those questions.

so, in other words, my vote only counts if it agrees with the vote of the superdelegates? well then why go through the bother of this so very expensive dog & pony show? i'd be upset about all that if i didn't live in florida so they are not even going to count my vote whether it agrees with them or not. i might as well be living in cuba.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texarkandy I've heard there's a good book out there (haven't read it yet) on the death of democracies wherein the vote-enfranchised have-nots always eventually manipulate the system to transfer wealth to themselves via government power & thus destroy the economy.

there's another story about the children of the have-nots who die in battle so that the haves have the opportunities to have what the have-nots have not.