To my knowledge there has not been a SB discussion of the Democrats use of super delegates. To me, it seems like a stupid idea. In theory, the point of the SD is to vote for whoever they feel like. Yet in reality there is a great deal of pressure on them to vote according to the states delegates or for whoever the front runner is. If they don't vote this way, and they give the nomination to someone other than the front runner, then the other candidate will feel the nomination was stolen from the front runner. But, again, the entire point of the SD is to vote for whoever they want, so realistically they should not be under pressure to vote for the front runner..........and yet they are. Also, the entire idea of SD seems kinda shady when you think that they can be "bought" or "convinced" by a candidate to swing their way. That in and of it self seems pretty un-democratic if they SD are supposed to vote independently. And my last point is that the person who a SD is voting for is usually pretty publicized, which seems shady as well. Its just one more way that the SD can be corrupted. All in all I think having SD is a pretty un-democratic idea and I just fail to see any benefit in it. They are supposed to be un-biased party representatives voting as such, but its blatantly obvious that they are by no means impartial voters. Why would the Dems want them.

5/7/2008 2:27:49 PM

Super delegates serve the purpose of party building.

5/7/2008 2:29:07 PM

from what i was told the point of the super delegates is to pick the most electable candidate

5/7/2008 2:30:59 PM

Are you serious? This is like the 3rd topic about superdelegates.

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=517120&page=1
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=508585&page=1
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=514240&page=1

5/7/2008 2:31:14 PM

yes but i am addressing specific questions here about the SD.

5/7/2008 2:32:22 PM

i hope they throw out both these toolbags and get a real presidential candidate

5/7/2008 2:33:14 PM

the notion of super delegates is inherently undemocratic....no suprise why the Dems use them they have the power to usurp the voice of the people.

5/7/2008 2:35:51 PM

I don't particularly agree with them either but that's only a justification the DNC can field.

I fail to see how this matters except you baiting democratic responses for you to troll. GOP doesn't use the system so you shouldn't care.

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM. Reason : because they're too busy fucking up the country! ]

5/7/2008 2:37:41 PM

dude im not trying to troll anyone, its a serious thread trying to promote discussion as to their purpose.

5/7/2008 2:40:25 PM

Yeah I know, that's fair. You have to excuse my skepticism.

The purpose of supers I believe is to address the problem of three-candidate primaries where the nominee could only muster a plurality of the popular vote. It’s extremely difficult to enter a general election with that albatross — majority of your party doesn’t support you — around your neck. The supers let the Convention “vote” in a way that’s likely to result in a majority for one candidate, giving him or her a big boost going into the general. It’s a wise system — except when it’s a clean two-candidate race, in which case that aristocratic system has no place in a democracy.

Also, in addition to the plurality problem..there certainly is a role for them to upset a popular sentiment, as expressed over the prior months, when “necessary.” But it’s the preliminary decision of determining when that threshold has been crossed that matters. My issue is that it is sort of difficult to believe that one of the reasons for playing this backstop role is because there are two strong candidates and the party elite prefer one over the popular sentiment tallies.

Despite all of this though, cnadidates must play by the prescribed rules an the campaign that does so effectively wins, and should win. This is precisely why I criticize the Clinton's campaign during this primary. If the DNC prescribed a naked sock hop to get to the nomination, then well, I expect the candidate I support to start dropping his or her drawers.

5/7/2008 2:50:10 PM

Quote :

"GOP doesn't use the system so you shouldn't care."

yes they do. they just rely less on them. (and without proportional representation from their primaries, it's less likely that they would have to be a tiebreaker)

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 2:54 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2008 2:53:35 PM

In regards to the original post,
First of all, you gotta add some blank lines. You always post big blocks of text that are a pain to read.

Secondly, I too hate the idea of superdelegates, especially back when the prospect of Clinton using them to overrule the primary results seemed like a possibility. The explanation Kainen laid out makes sense though.

5/7/2008 2:55:46 PM

Quote :

"First of all, you gotta add some blank lines. You always post big blocks of text that are a pain to read."

dude its a paragraph

5/7/2008 3:05:37 PM

I'm just saying when you get past four lines it becomes hard to read. On my screen (1280x1024, medium text size), it's nine lines.

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 3:27 PM. Reason : we can go back to the original topic though]

5/7/2008 3:27:04 PM

sorry

5/7/2008 4:06:58 PM

the notion of super delegates is inherently undemocratic....no suprise why the Dems use them they have the power to usurp the voice of the people.

5/7/2008 4:08:25 PM

.
why do republicans care so much how my party chooses its nominee?

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 4:13 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2008 4:13:22 PM

b/c when everybody gets higher taxes next year, the repubs would like to have a shot to pick who's going to be raising them and how much they are going to be raised

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 4:20 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2008 4:20:22 PM

^^ Because it plays into the stereotype that Democrats are elitist.

5/7/2008 5:00:39 PM

whats the stereotype for republicans?

5/7/2008 5:11:48 PM

Winner-take-all is easily as undemocratic as superdelegates. If 49% of the people in one state votes for one candidate and 51% the other, the 49% votes are (more or less) meaningless.

5/7/2008 6:35:38 PM

Quote :

"the notion of super delegates is inherently undemocratic....no suprise why the Dems use them they have the power to usurp the voice of the people."

5/7/2008 6:45:41 PM