JuanCarlos
New member
I'm still curious what an acceptable number (or rather, percentage) of superdelegates would be, Bruxley.
It has been suggested that the Democratic party enacted these rules in fear of a Jesse Jackson win in a primary.
Didn't the "super delegate" scheme come into existence in the early '70s?
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.
you lose the moral high ground
JuanCarlos said:So, assertion one: RNC member unpledged delegates are no different than Superdelegates.
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.
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.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...