|
Telling someone that they have more votes than everyone else in the country is bs.
This is a democracy. Aren't all people created equal? So why do superdelegates count for more than
everyone else? It's unfair and undemocratic.
Many superdelegates themselves think its unfair.
The superdelegate system is left over from when most people in America were illiterate and couldn't
make informed decisions due to lack of knowledge and information. That's changed. The superdelegate
system is outdated. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
First remember, the Democratic Party is the only party that uses "superdelegates". Second, the
government nor Constitution does not regulate the Democratic Party process, so if there is any
changes that are needed, it is solely within the responsibility of the Party, not the government. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think it would be tremendously unfair if Obama had the nomination stolen from him by the
superdelegates. However, each party can decide for itself how it wants to select a nominee. If
people thought the superdelegate system was unfair, they should have spoken up beforehand.
There is something to be said for establishment figures in the party exercising a leavening
influence on the enthusiasm of party members. Sometimes the actual registered members of a political
party are very different from its ordinary supporters ie. The people who vote for it. For example,
in Britain in the 1980s, the members of the Labour party were far more left-wing than the ordinary
voters who traditionally supported the party. As a result, the could use their membership to select
extremist candidates who would not be able to win general support in the country.
All political parties have to be on their guard against the phenomenon usually called "entryism",
meaning an organised effort to infiltrate the party and to change its political complexion. During
the Cold War, people used to speculate about communist infiltration of organisations. It's quite
possible that the lurch to the right of the Republican party over the last few decades results from
a deliberate strategy of entryism by extremist right-wing evangelicals. They realised that to get
what they wanted, they would have to infiltrate the Republican party and become active within it,
supporting anti-abortion candidates and the like. Virtually any of the recent crop of Republican
presidential nominee candidates would have been considered a crazed extremist in the 1970s.
In America, this is particularly a danger because of the strange and varied nature of the nominee
election process across the country. Some states have essentially open voting processes in which
anyone could vote. In theory, republicans could participate in the Democratic process and vote en
masse for the Democrat they thought was least likely to win. So, in my view, having some kind of
buffer mechanism like the superdelegate system does make some kind of sense because it offers some
protection against this kind of manipulation. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
26 Feb 2008 12:47
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
