Democrat nominee decided by super delegates?

**...bigdog...** · 02-12-08, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

And let's not forget the super delegates in florida and....michigan...or is it minnesota? "disqualified" by the UNELECTED democratic national committee because the states VOTED to move up their primaries.

I believe that only the delegates in those states are disallowed. The super-delegates are not state affiliated, they are selected by the party, so they still get their vote no matter where they reside.

totally lame, then. Florida super delegates get to choose, though the peoples votes were discounted.

burn it down.

**SapiensErus** · 02-12-08, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

And let's not forget the super delegates in florida and....michigan...or is it minnesota? "disqualified" by the UNELECTED democratic national committee because the states VOTED to move up their primaries.

I believe that only the delegates in those states are disallowed. The super-delegates are not state affiliated, they are selected by the party, so they still get their vote no matter where they reside.

totally lame, then. Florida super delegates get to choose, though the peoples votes were discounted.

burn it down.

My GF is working on her masters in poli-sci, and we discuss this one a lot. The idea with the super-delegate is that they are selected by the party specifically because they embody everything the party stands for and will make sure that the candidate selected truly embraces and stands for what the democratic party upholds. That being said, I think it is pretty weak that that they have the final say regardless of the popular vote.

It should also be said that the delegates in many states do not *have* to support the candidate that won the popular vote; they most typically do however. The super-delegates likewise have a history of voting for the candidate that won the popular vote.

Really the whole primary system is screwed up. I say hold it all on one day just like we do the regular election also. The long span of time they carry it out frequently allows the outcome to be determined by the first few states rather than the whole. People tend to vote for the "winner" if they have foreknowledge.

**Gumby** · 02-12-08, 09:27 AM

wait, Aren't the Democrats the ones that said that the popular vote should be what is important after the 2000 election??

Then they use an even worse system to select their candidate?

**SapiensErus** · 02-12-08, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Gumby

wait, Aren't the Democrats the ones that said that the popular vote should be what is important after the 2000 election??

Then they use an even worse system to select their candidate?

I am a dem and yeah, I think it is pretty weak. But like I said earlier, the delegates (where they may) and the super-delegates traditionally vote along with the popular vote. But in the past the popular vote is usually very clear cut. Thats why the subject of super-delegates is under scrutiny now because it is a close race and that is highly unusual.

**...bigdog...** · 02-12-08, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Gumby

wait, Aren't the Democrats the ones that said that the popular vote should be what is important after the 2000 election??

Then they use an even worse system to select their candidate?

funny how that works, huh?

**Potemkine** · 02-12-08, 02:10 PM

If its decided by super delegates than burn it down!!!!! Disenfranchisement!!!!! The people are not having their voices heard!!!!

Personally I feel that the electoral college issue has to be looked at again to see its place in the modern US. Previously it was suffrage for the white land owning males....now its universal. Things have changed, information age, people learn stuff in an instant instead of 2 weeks. I am not calling for the complete rejection of the electoral college, but to seriously look at it again and to bring it into the 21st century

**Muqtar SGT_Clintok** · 02-12-08, 02:26 PM

Actually Gumby, the popular vote became unimportant in 2004 when Bush won the popular vote by 4M votes.

The electoral vote became very important at that time because of the 68K vote difference in Ohio which could have kept Bush out of office.

It changes.......depending on the situation.

I was actually relieved to watch the Dems sweep through in 2006. I didn't have to listen of six weeks of listening to conspiracy theories about how the election was stolen. The Repugs took their licks and went home in silence.

**Gumby** · 02-12-08, 02:48 PM

Muqtar SGT_Clintok,
My point was not about the merits of the system, just that the Democrats were quick to be critical of a system that can negate a popular vote but they are still using a similar system for their own nomination system.
Personally, I have been a long time critic of the electoral college system. I think it is antiquated and I have felt that way since becoming a registered voter in 1992

**Muqtar SGT_Clintok** · 02-12-08, 03:39 PM

And Gumby, I applaud your point. I agree with you that the electoral college should be trashed.

The point of mine is to highlight the selective outrage that occurs when the outcome isn't what the Dems want.

**...bigdog...** · 02-12-08, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Muqtar SGT_Clintok

And Gumby, I applaud your point. I agree with you that the electoral college should be trashed.

why? did you read my stuff above?

The USA should be controlled by only the FEW population centers on the east and west coast (and texas), and the rest of the country should be left out of the process?

Again....if you support removing the electoral college becuase you want it to be a pure, popular vote....then you must support dissolving the senate, and letting the HoR decide all legislative business. Nobody is for that....so to say you want to trash the electoral college simply means, to me, that you aren't looking at why it's there.

it's genius. Don't hate genius.