My Super-Delegate Problem
Can someone explain to me the logic of having a super delegate system in a representative democracy? It seems to me that super delegates infringe on the principles of democracy by giving party elders disproportionate power. "One Person, One Vote" goes the old adage and subsequently becomes "one powerful leader, one entire delegate." Even Bill Clinton gets a super delegate.
In an election this close it is worrisome to me. Hillary has 201 of these, which is why she leads the total delegate count. Obama has 110. Hillary would be in second place if not for these super delegates with Obama have approx. 785 and Hilary having 777.
In an election this close it is worrisome to me. Hillary has 201 of these, which is why she leads the total delegate count. Obama has 110. Hillary would be in second place if not for these super delegates with Obama have approx. 785 and Hilary having 777.
posted by John Liberty at 2:11 PM
11 Comments:
Primaries are a relatively new phenomenon, and aren't really regulated with the idea of promoting the ideals of representative democracy. So there's not really a logic to the issue. It's at least better than the old system, in which party bosses controlled everything. That system was corrupt as all hell, and basically resulted in the 1968 Democratic Convention being torn to shreds. If you read biographies of Truman or FDR, there are some really juicy bits about the kind of ass they had to kiss in order to sway big city machine bosses.
I sort of doubt that the super-delegates will change the election. If they do, there will be backlash, and the democrats know it. So in some sense, I see this as similar to the electoral college system: theoretically, the electors could change their minds, but they won't, or the system will be changed and they'll be mangled by the hoi polloi. On the other hand, it seems to be having somewhat of a psychological effect. Perhaps it's good for Obama--it allows him to paint himself as the underdog--"Yes we can," right?
I don't understand how the corruption issue is solved by the super delegates? If anything, at least at face value, seems to institutionalize it.
What are you reading nowadays?
thinking about buying the kindle...extremely cheap books...in under a minute
and dude - the super delegates i am speaking of i think are already pledged. so its already had some effect. i think its a fucking joke.
Austin is right -- apparently Humphrey got the nom in 68 despite having won NO primaries. Superdelegates didn't solve the old method, they placated it. Also, it is redundant to say "the hoi polloi." "Hoi" just means "the"! And "scantron" just means "big fat dork."
what is this? the whole primary system probably helped solve the hubert humphrey thing..but the super delegate process was meant for party bosses to retain influence in light of these changes. it is what is left over from this corrupt time. Austin 5000 says "it's at least better than the old system"....it is the old system.
Yeah, but that's the point. It's the old system, and there's no reason to change it (in the eyes of the party leadership), so nothing will happen, even if there are good reasons for it to be abolished. Now, back to the issue of whether it matters, here is an excellent point by Matthew Yglesias:
"Imagine a scenario in which Obama has the majority among pledged delegates, but Clinton has the lead among all delegate. Her superdelegates probably won't want to give the election to the candidate who lost. But they could use their majority at the convention to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations. And then Michigan and Florida could put Clinton over the top in a way that could be construed as more democratic than the alternative. Just idle speculation for now, but who doesn't like idle speculation?"
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/how_the_supers_could_matter.php
you just said its better than the old system and now your saying it is the old system.
It sort of seems like "your" not thinking/reading very carefully.
Liberty: "it is what is left over from this corrupt time. Austin 5000 says "it's at least better than the old system"....it is the old system.
Austin: "Yeah, but that's the point"
I don't think I'm missing the point. I think your losing ur head!
if someone can tell me how superdelegates help democracy please go ahead. not the primary system, but the inclusion of superdelegates in the process.
Post a Comment
<< Home