• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Dem "superdelegate" system fair?

Is the Dem "superdelegate" system fair?


  • Total voters
    37

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Is the Dem "superdelegate" system fair?

On paper, at least, they're unpledged, but all the talk from the beginning of the primary was that most were already committed to Hillary. If so, did that doom Bernie Sanders from the start? Or, was it just fine?
 
Fair among candidates? No. Is it a proper safeguard? Yes.
 
Is the Dem "superdelegate" system fair?

On paper, at least, they're unpledged, but all the talk from the beginning of the primary was that most were already committed to Hillary. If so, did that doom Bernie Sanders from the start? Or, was it just fine?

It depends.
If you go on and on and on, about how precious and important democracy is, then have things that are antidemocractic.
I'd say you were a liar.

The superdelegate system is a signal of sorts though.
At least in this election.
It was to show Hillary as the most likely candidate and people don't like being on the losing side.
It's manipulative, in my opinion.
 
I was dead against the SC's, but now in a post Trumpian world I'm not so sure.

Yes, they help prevent populace candidates like Bernie from rising to the top; but then as we can see in the instance of Donald Trump - that might not necessarily be a bad thing!

I'm still leaning towards them being a bad thing, though.
 
Fair among candidates? No. Is it a proper safeguard? Yes.

While I am against the super delegate concept - you do have a point since one wonders if the GOP had it would they then be saddled with the albatross they ended up with?
 
While I am against the super delegate concept - you do have a point since one wonders if the GOP had it would they then be saddled with the albatross they ended up with?
I think Trump has caused many to look at the electoral and political process in a new light.

I also suspect the GOP (hierarchy and establishment) is going to be more careful about embracing any loony-toons or loony-toon theories that come down-the-pike, in the name of political expediency.

They know they helped create and foster The Donald. And it bit them in the ass!
 
Is the Dem "superdelegate" system fair?
That depends on what you mean by "fair" in the context of a political party selecting their candidate. I'd suggest the core issue here is how the candidate selection processes were played out - by media, public and many within the parties themselves - as if they were just some kind of preliminary election.
 
I think Trump has caused many to look at the electoral and political process in a new light.

I also suspect the GOP (hierarchy and establishment) is going to be more careful about embracing any loony-toons or loony-toon theories that come down-the-pike, in the name of political expediency.

They know they helped create and foster The Donald. And it bit them in the ass!

I think Trump being considered as the "unhinged, loony" is just effective branding from his opposition.
If they change things because of that, we've lost big time.
 
Please explain. I'm not sure what you mean.

It was enacted to prevent disastrous electoral college scenarios like Mondale, but it also serves as a check against otherwise undesirable individuals reaching powerful positions. As Haymarket alluded, the superdelegate system would have been a desirable counter to Trump's ascendancy. I find it wonderfully in tune with many of the arguments held within our founding generation, which held a fairly anti-democratic bent. In today's society, saying you are anti-democratic is seen as a bad thing, whereas I find it needed to temper the passions of the masses who sadly seek radical solutions and demagogues to assuage their collective condition. It does them no grand service to do so, but they do it anyway, putting the whole system in jeopardy.
 
While I am against the super delegate concept - you do have a point since one wonders if the GOP had it would they then be saddled with the albatross they ended up with?

I guess it worked real well for you guys with corrupt Hillary and all. :lol:
 
I was dead against the SC's, but now in a post Trumpian world I'm not so sure.

Yes, they help prevent populace candidates like Bernie from rising to the top; but then as we can see in the instance of Donald Trump - that might not necessarily be a bad thing!

I'm still leaning towards them being a bad thing, though.

So.... you are saying it could be a good thing if it keeps candidates that people actually want to vote for out of office?

I thought we the people were supposed to be the ones who select the Presidential candidates that we want.... and eventually the Presidents themselves. As well as the legislative body members as well......

Silly me..... in 2016 we the people don't have the power to do jack ****. The two major parties rule over us with an iron fist, whether we are willing or not.

Thankfully we still have the 2nd amendment if **** gets too bad..... but Hillary will try to take that from us too with her desire to overturn Heller.


Then where will we be?
 
Is the Dem "superdelegate" system fair?

On paper, at least, they're unpledged, but all the talk from the beginning of the primary was that most were already committed to Hillary. If so, did that doom Bernie Sanders from the start? Or, was it just fine?

No candidate is doomed from the start. Superdelegates exist to establish a nominee when the voters fail to produce a clear winner - but there was a clear winner in this case. Hillary won the popular vote by over 3 million votes. It would have been undemocratic for the superdelegates to side with Sanders.
 
I think Trump being considered as the "unhinged, loony" is just effective branding from his opposition.
If they change things because of that, we've lost big time.
I see your concerns, but I think he has indeed gone far enough over the top to be considered a loony.

To me it's not matter of kind, but matter of degree.

Your point has merit, though. I can respect it. I just don't agree to the depth, you might.
 
It was enacted to prevent disastrous electoral college scenarios like Mondale, but it also serves as a check against otherwise undesirable individuals reaching powerful positions. As Haymarket alluded, the superdelegate system would have been a desirable counter to Trump's ascendancy. I find it wonderfully in tune with many of the arguments held within our founding generation, which held a fairly anti-democratic bent. In today's society, saying you are anti-democratic is seen as a bad thing, whereas I find it needed to temper the passions of the masses who sadly seek radical solutions and demagogues to assuage their collective condition. It does them no grand service to do so, but they do it anyway, putting the whole system in jeopardy.

Im still confused on how many people in this thread, like Fiddytree here, seem to be content with the idea that the people are losing their access to self governance and that we should be okay with giving over that control to elitists within the major parties. These major parties who also control what information is and is not disseminated via our mass media networks, making it nearly impossible for another party or "outside" candidate to be successful outside of local/regional candidates.
 
I think Trump has caused many to look at the electoral and political process in a new light.

I also suspect the GOP (hierarchy and establishment) is going to be more careful about embracing any loony-toons or loony-toon theories that come down-the-pike, in the name of political expediency.

They know they helped create and foster The Donald. And it bit them in the ass!

One thing they must do is get rid of the winner take all concept in primaries and go to a proportional allocation like the Dems have had for some time now. Then you could not have a guy like Trump winning a quarter or a third of the states vote and taking all the delegates to the convention.
 
The democrats can do whatever they want.
If somebody doesn't like it, they have the option to leave the party. (something I seriously support - for both parties)

I am not a democrat, so I don't care how they nominate their candidates.

I think how they currently do it is stupid, but that's their choice.
 
I see your concerns, but I think he has indeed gone far enough over the top to be considered a loony.

To me it's not matter of kind, but matter of degree.

Your point has merit, though. I can respect it. I just don't agree to the depth, you might.

Really smart people can be persuaded to believe things that are not true or are wonky.
What first interested me in this election was the branding/persuasion techniques of each candidate.
Then it made me angry.
In Romney's campaign, he was painted as most of the things, that Trump has been painted as.
People actually believed it, even though it wasn't true.

Some articles on this, if you're interested.

Skeptic » Insight » Why Smart People Are Not Always Rational

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opi...usions-why-smart-people-believe-stupid-things

Why Do Intelligent, Well-Educated People Still Believe Nonsense?
 
No candidate is doomed from the start. Superdelegates exist to establish a nominee when the voters fail to produce a clear winner - but there was a clear winner in this case. Hillary won the popular vote by over 3 million votes. It would have been undemocratic for the superdelegates to side with Sanders.

There were several hundred super delegates with stated intent to vote for Hillary by the 2nd Dem primary.
 
I guess it worked real well for you guys with corrupt Hillary and all. :lol:

Hillary was the insider and super delegates always favor the insider. I was a delegate in 72 and there were no super delegates then. And I am still against the concept even though I see the point about a protection against an idiot like Trump. I guess in the end, if we are going to march off the cliff into insanity, its our choice and probably should be our choice.
 
The democrats can do whatever they want.
If somebody doesn't like it, they have the option to leave the party. (something I seriously support - for both parties)

I am not a democrat, so I don't care how they nominate their candidates.

I think how they currently do it is stupid, but that's their choice.

How is it stupid? If their goal is to control the process then the system works wonderfully for that.
 
I think Trump being considered as the "unhinged, loony" is just effective branding from his opposition.

Trump is considered an "unhinged, loony" because that's the way he friggin operates.
Seriously dude, have you not been paying attention?
 
So.... you are saying it could be a good thing if it keeps candidates that people actually want to vote for out of office?

I thought we the people were supposed to be the ones who select the Presidential candidates that we want.... and eventually the Presidents themselves. As well as the legislative body members as well......

Silly me..... in 2016 we the people don't have the power to do jack ****. The two major parties rule over us with an iron fist, whether we are willing or not.

Thankfully we still have the 2nd amendment if **** gets too bad..... but Hillary will try to take that from us too with her desire to overturn Heller.


Then where will we be?
I think it's all a matter of degree, keeping in mind parties are private entities. You seem to be conflating the terms of a democratic election, with a political nomination process. There's many different forms of nomination processes in private entities.
 
Maybe because these delegates actually knew Hillary and had faith in her ability.

What ability? She can't even keep her intentions secret. When the FBI said she was incompetent they weren't lying.
 
Back
Top Bottom