Super Delegates

Super Delegates are a Democrat thing. You answer it. Your baiting me into a diversionary discussion off the obviously embarrassing reality of the nature of the Democrat's nomination process.

The heavy handedness of the Democrat Leadership is not only shown in this Super Delegate reservation of power but the willingness to assert it's will on any that don't conform to the will of that leadership such as Joe Lieberman, Zelll Miller, even the States of Florida and Michigan were penalized for not conforming to what the national leadership desired.

What are we to gather from this behavior? What is the opposite of Federalism? The Democrat leadership has shown it is willing to assert it's power upon it's own whether it 'primaries' incumbents in it's own party or strips the State level party of it's delegates and has in place these 800 super delegates to sway the result should it be necessary to 'protect the party'.
 
No, I'm baiting you into admitting that the Republican Party is not so different.

For one, I will go ahead and directly ask for an explanation of the difference (other than name) between a Superdelegate and a RNC unpledged delegate. Other than the percentage of total delegates, they seem identical to me. Hence the reason I keep asking for that number...I can only assume that for you it's about 5-6%, right?

So, assertion one: RNC member unpledged delegates are no different than Superdelegates.

You also bring up another fun one, the punishment of states for moving their primaries (or, as you put it more generally, not following their party's rules). Yes, the Democratic Party did this. So did the Republican Party. Or were Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida not stripped of half their delegates? I'll leave you to go find out why, since you were apparently unaware of this. The research might do you some good.

So I ask again directly, what is a reasonable number of delegates to strip? 50%? 75%?

Or, another direct assertion: The Republican party is equally willing to strip delegates from states that don't conform to their rules.

The only difference I'm seeing between the supposed offenses of the Democratic Party and the actions of the Republican Party that you seem willing to ignore (or are simply ignorant of) is in degree. So why exactly is it you feel the need to rail against the practices of the Democratic Party yet feel no need to defend the same practices when Republicans engage in them? Is there a point to this thread, other than "Democrats ain't democratic olol?"

EDIT: Also, you probably shouldn't bother to reply unless you're willing to counter either of the italicized assertions above.

EDIT: Alternately, we could shift discussion in this thread to some of the less savory aspects of both parties' nomination process. But for some reason I'm thinking that's not your goal.
 
It has been suggested that the Democratic party enacted these rules in fear of a Jesse Jackson win in a primary. It could be logical since Jackson would never have won a general election.
Obama is quite capable of winning a general election and I suspect the party will support him if Hillary doesn't quickly rally.
 
Isnt the Democratic Party a private organization?

What is wrong with a private party picking its own leader, no matter how they do it? I don't think it would be unreasonable for the primary election to be completely discarded in favor of party bosses simply picking who they want to run.

It would be no different than the controlling board of GM picking their own CEO.
 
Didn't the "super delegate" scheme come into existence in the early '70s?
Click to expand...

Well, according to wikipedia at least it came into existence after the '80 election and was first used in the '84 election. On the Democratic side, that is.

Also, from wikipedia, it should be noted that "superdelegate" is an unofficial term. They're actually "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates," which when you get down to it doesn't sound much different from "unpledged Republican National Committee member delegates." So again, the difference seems to largely [EDIT: entirely?] be in number.

I don't think it would be unreasonable for the primary election to be completely discarded in favor of party bosses simply picking who they want to run.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I'd say it might be a bit unreasonable. I'd certainly consider it undesirable. In any party that lends any weight to the democratic process, the will of the people (in this case, the party members) should have some weight in selecting the nominee. At the same time, for reasons I've already mentioned, I also don't think its unreasonable for them to not have the final say...since again primary elections are subject to mechanics that aren't present in the general, and the ultimate goal of the nomination is to choose the candidate that can win the White House.

Is 20% excessive? Maybe. But as soon as you accept that having any number of such delegates is acceptable, you lose the moral high ground...it's just quibbling over numbers, like the old "would you sleep with me for a million dollars" joke.
 
JuanCarlos said:
So, assertion one: RNC member unpledged delegates are no different than Superdelegates.
Click to expand...

Except that the national party (RNC) simply has a voice. 119 delegates, using your 5% assertion, isn't a dominating influence where 1191 are needed (a 10% influence). The recognition and respect for the State Parties in the federalist model of the Republic which is the United States is maintained. Why have the process for The People to select their candidate be less then that model?

800 delegates is dominating influence by the national party (DNC)where 2025 are needed (a 40% influence). The national party isn't willing to give too much influence to the State parties. In fact they even divey up the States rendering the State parties little more then administrative offices for the DNC.

Juan Carlos said:
Or, another direct assertion: The Republican party is equally willing to strip delegates from states that don't conform to their rules.
Click to expand...

The State parties still retain their influence. They are still recognized and respected in the model of the Republic. To cast the whole state and the voice of The People completely away isn't right. The State party got less of a voice but weren't ostracized.

Despite the baiting and accusations of being ignorant (I know, it was indirect right...) I'm not going to offend you. I'll let the need to resort to such behavior speak for it's self.

The thread is highlighting the UN-democratic means that Democrats have in place to secure the power to 'protect the party'. The threat being the misguided votes of it's membership should this not go how the DNC wishes. The will of The People is OK as long as it fits the result the Democrat leadership want.

Remember also, when you reflexively measure the behavior of Democrats with the Republicans you are recognizing them as the standard to be measured against. Careful what you are acknowledging. Better to use a standard such as Federalism or the qualities of the Republic or some other non-partisan standard that relates to the virtues of the American way. It seems odd that the methods a party uses to nominate a candidate are dismissed by saying the party is a private entity and despite this being a process for The People to choose the President there is no need to hold this private entity to any standards of American democracy. That with which one measures one's self against reveals what one regards as the standard.
 
Is 20% excessive? Maybe. But as soon as you accept that having any number of such delegates is acceptable, you lose the moral high ground...
Click to expand...
Not exactly. It's not an "all-or-nothing" situation; it doesn't have to be, nor should it be. It depends on the purpose of having "superdelegates." If you have a valid purpose, you should have only as many as you need to accomplish that purpose. If you have too many to accomplish the purpose, the number is excessive. If you have too few to accomplish the purpose, the number is insufficient.

The real moral high ground (or low ground, as the case may be) is the purpose. For example (meant only for purposes of illustration), if the purpose is to provide some leverage for parties to negotiate a settlement that is reasonably acceptable to the parties involved, that could be the moral high ground. However, if the purpose is to ensure that the party bosses get what they want and everyone else be damned, that could be the moral low ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top