• 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!

Question For Registered Democrats Only

Would you favor the elimination of the superdelegate system?


  • Total voters
    15
If the party restricts campaign raising activities to only 3 months before the vote, it will limit the amount raised. If campaign advertising and spending was limited to those 3 months the amount of money required for campaigning would drop.

The perpetual campaign in the US, requires massive amounts of money. Make it a much shorter period of time, and the costs drop drastically.

The time matters, but so long as commercials need to be paid for very few candidates would have the ability to run a national campaign, in fact so many doing their best to do so would likely drive up their addiction to the money they are already corrupted by, and the cost of elections, even if they were confined to 3 months, which given the way SCOTUS has not been giving a damn about corruption they likely would support.
 
If Indies wanted to vote in a particular parties presidential selection process, they would be required to purchase an annual membership in the party (say $40)

Not sure if I'm on board with that; it doesn't seem like a substantial barrier, but even relatively small paywalls and other barriers can have a surprisingly dramatic impact on turn outs.

I understand the argument that the primary is supposed to represent the will of the base, but in terms of actually winning in the general, I believe the Dems should do whatever they reasonably can to harness the sentiment of independents.
 
It absolutely does matter in so far as you're aiming for a system that's more democratic and representative of the people's (or the base's) will.

And I largely agree with Tammerlain, though I'm not so sure I would freeze out independents from primary votation as they can be invaluable for producing a more viable candidate in the general.
Lord Tamerlin is an idealist and I'm on her side more than against. Here's the thing,

Democrats are bad politicians and that's why they lose, period. The system is fair and will always be fair so long as they play by the same rules.

Why would I want even a fair system? I want a system that benefits me, that's what's up.

I have never voted for a republican and have only votef for the Democratic party straight ticket.

Changing the system will only mask the problem. They would still have to win in a changed system. They will lose in any system until they learn how to fight!


Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
Lord Tamerlin is an idealist and I'm on her side more than against. Here's the thing,

Democrats are bad politicians and that's why they lose, period. The system is fair and will always be fair so long as they play by the same rules.

Why would I want even a fair system? I want a system that benefits me, that's what's up.

I have never voted for a republican and have only votef for the Democratic party straight ticket.

Changing the system will only mask the problem. They would still have to win in a changed system. They will lose in any system until they learn how to fight!


Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

Bad politicians are less likely to win in a system where party brass can't save them, and they live or die solely by their merits in terms of swaying the electorate; doubly so if that electorate includes independents as well as registered Democrats (so they can't bank solely on party cred/partisan allegiance).

Changing the system doesn't mask the problem; it produces candidates that are both more representative of the people/base and more likely to win.
 
Lord Tamerlin is an idealist and I'm on her side more than against. Here's the thing,

Democrats are bad politicians and that's why they lose, period. The system is fair and will always be fair so long as they play by the same rules.

Why would I want even a fair system? I want a system that benefits me, that's what's up.

I have never voted for a republican and have only votef for the Democratic party straight ticket.

Changing the system will only mask the problem. They would still have to win in a changed system. They will lose in any system until they learn how to fight!


Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

The system I proposed is in general the system the Canadian Conservative party in general uses/used. To select the party leader (who also becomes the PM of Canada if that party wins the general election)

The campaigning time is limited, the amount of money that can be raised before the campaign starts is limited. Only members of the Conservative party are allowed to vote for the Party leader/PM Candidate. The voting was done over a very short period of time. The convention is when the results were announced. The voting system went through if I recall correctly about 7 recounts before enough of the marginal candidate were eliminated to provide a winner with over 50% of the votes.

The eventual winner was not the person with the initial highest number of votes (who had less then 50%) but appealed to more people overall
 
Bad politicians are less likely to win in a system where party brass can't save them, and they live or die solely by their merits in terms of swaying the electorate; doubly so if that electorate includes independents as well as registered Democrats (so they can't bank solely on party cred/partisan allegiance).

Changing the system doesn't mask the problem; it produces candidates that are both more representative of the people/base and more likely to win.
Exactly to a point. For instance, you are for a change in the system that benefits YOU. Just admit it. Each state has a different but fair system. Are you saying that not one of the fifty states has a fair system for selecting delegates?

In every system, we pick poor candidates. Even when we pick good ones, they lose. The only, only, way we will pick better candidates is to change what's in a voters mind.

All excuses that follow bad voters comes up short.

Politics is everything. It is the atom from which all elements spring. Politicians still have to shake hands, kiss babies, drink a beer at someone's bbq, speak at neighborhood churches and Civic clubs.

Change that!


Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
The system I proposed is in general the system the Canadian Conservative party in general uses/used. To select the party leader (who also becomes the PM of Canada if that party wins the general election)

The campaigning time is limited, the amount of money that can be raised before the campaign starts is limited. Only members of the Conservative party are allowed to vote for the Party leader/PM Candidate. The voting was done over a very short period of time. The convention is when the results were announced. The voting system went through if I recall correctly about 7 recounts before enough of the marginal candidate were eliminated to provide a winner with over 50% of the votes.

The eventual winner was not the person with the initial highest number of votes (who had less then 50%) but appealed to more people overall
That just means two systems are fair. You don't think there is a losing candidate or voter who believes there system. is unfair? They're saying, "our system is unfair we should be more like America".

You still have to win in this system to have the power to change it (remember that Bernie's). Guess what happens when you win. Suddenly there's nothing wrong with the system.


Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
Exactly to a point. For instance, you are for a change in the system that benefits YOU. Just admit it. Each state has a different but fair system. Are you saying that not one of the fifty states has a fair system for selecting delegates?

In every system, we pick poor candidates. Even when we pick good ones, they lose. The only, only, way we will pick better candidates is to change what's in a voters mind.

All excuses that follow bad voters comes up short.

Politics is everything. It is the atom from which all elements spring. Politicians still have to shake hands, kiss babies, drink a beer at someone's bbq, speak at neighborhood churches and Civic clubs.

Change that!


Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

No, it's not about benefiting me personally, or even a question of 'fairness', it's about maximizing representation and winning elections.

A good process that is more reflective of the general and more accountable to the electorate will tend to produce better candidates.
 
No, it's not about benefiting me personally, or even a question of 'fairness', it's about maximizing representation and winning elections.

A good process that is more reflective of the general and more accountable to the electorate will tend to produce better candidates.
When I said "you" i didn't mean it in a bad way. What I meant is all politics is about "me". I stand by politics involving way more than the system. It is infinitely bigger than that.


For instance, Putin. He's in a very different system but would get elected in any system, including ours.

Bad candidates were selected before the superdelegate system. Think about it, people don't remember the 2nd place candidate in the losing party, like Bernie. Usually there's only one paragraph in the history books about the losing candidate, like Hillary, or Gore.

Next we never elect the best candidate, ever. It's always the second best. That's democracy.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
When I said "you" i didn't mean it in a bad way. What I meant is all politics is about "me". I stand by politics involving way more than the system. It is infinitely bigger than that.


For instance, Putin. He's in a very different system but would get elected in any system, including ours.

It's quite a claim to make that someone like Putin would get elected in any system, including the United States, knowing what people do about him.

Bad candidates were selected before the superdelegate system. Think about it, people don't remember the 2nd place candidate in the losing party, like Bernie. Usually there's only one paragraph in the history books about the losing candidate, like Hillary, or Gore.

Next we never elect the best candidate, ever. It's always the second best. That's democracy.

As Bernie goes, the dude is the most popular politico in the US at present, easily one of the most recognized and well known American politicos in general, and he seems likely to make history as an effectual champion for progressive change in the Dem party; his legacy still has yet to be determined and crystalized; it's far too soon to proclaim that he will be forgotten.

And while bad candidates were certainly selected before the superdelegate system, my argument is not that elimination of superdelegates and caucuses and inclusion of/exposure to independents will result in unbeatable candidates, nor even will always result in better ones; it will however be more likely to produce better candidates in terms of electability in the general.
 
It's quite a claim to make that someone like Putin would get elected in any system, including the United States, knowing what people do about him.



As Bernie goes, the dude is the most popular politico in the US at present, easily one of the most recognized and well known American politicos in general, and he seems likely to make history as an effectual champion for progressive change in the Dem party; his legacy still has yet to be determined and crystalized; it's far too soon to proclaim that he will be forgotten.

And while bad candidates were certainly selected before the superdelegate system, my argument is not that elimination of superdelegates and caucuses and inclusion of/exposure to independents will result in unbeatable candidates, nor even will always result in better ones; it will however be more likely to produce better candidates in terms of electability in the general.
That's what people said about McGovern that brought on the superdelegates.

Just because Bernie might have been a great president, he was a much worse candidate and they're two different things.

Bernie is old for starters, and cranky like McCain. He's from the northeast were presidents never come from.Trump is, but both the candidates were. He's been in the Senate for 35yrs so he's can be painted as establishment. What has he actually accomplished as a senator? I question whether his support is cult of personality and not a movement at all. If it's a movement it should be able to survive without him and it really hasn't. He's not a socialist but his followers think he is. What was he going to nationalize again? He caucuses with the democrats, right? Why? And since he didn't win the nomination, he is a loser, so he doesn't have the power to change anything. You have to have the power.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
That's what people said about McGovern that brought on the superdelegates.

Really? So McGovern existed in an environment without caucuses and with universal independent inclusion? Pretty sure that's not what history says, besides the fact that I have never claimed my proposal to be fool proof. As stated, 'more likely' != 'will always' in terms of generating better, more competitive nominee outcomes.

Just because Bernie might have been a great president, he was a much worse candidate and they're two different things.

I'm not sure what his relative worth is as a nominee to his worth as a president, but I can certainly tell you with confidence that he was a better candidate than Hillary per all the numbers as they stood at the time and had a better chance than her.

Bernie is old for starters, and cranky like McCain. He's from the northeast were presidents never come from.Trump is, but both the candidates were. He's been in the Senate for 35yrs so he's can be painted as establishment. What has he actually accomplished as a senator? I question whether his support is cult of personality and not a movement at all. If it's a movement it should be able to survive without him and it really hasn't. He's not a socialist but his followers think he is. What was he going to nationalize again? He caucuses with the democrats, right? Why? And since he didn't win the nomination, he is a loser, so he doesn't have the power to change anything. You have to have the power.

I'm pretty sure that in light of his voting record, wholesale refusal to take corporate donations, stances (which have remained consistent), and his more glaring points of contrast with Hillary particularly in relation to things like UHC, money in politics and so on, no one except the most willfully ignorant could possibly confuse him with establishment neoliberal/third way politics, or even more ridiculously, establishment GOP politics. The distinction is pretty readily apparent even to fairly casual observers.

RE: Bernie's accomplishments: Bernie Sanders' accomplishments - Occasional Planet

As to the movement, Bernie hasn't gone anywhere, so how can you judge its ability to withstand his loss without that even happening? It hasn't 'survived without him' because it's never _been_ without him.

Concerning nationalization, the de facto nationalization of huge swaths of healthcare pretty readily comes to mind.

Being someone with first hand experience in the depths of Bernie's movement and dealing with the people there, I can tell you we understand pretty readily that he isn't the sort of hard socialist which means nationalization of all industry and public ownership of the means of production, and that 'social democrat' is the more accurate descriptor.

Finally, again, losing the nomination doesn't suddenly mean you're bereft of power. It is an impediment to be sure, but political power is expressed, developed and construed in all kinds of forms. Being a senator on the crest and at the lead of a prominent, rising and increasingly influential movement, while simultaneously being the most popular politico in the country and one of the most conspicuous and well known/recognized, is certainly a position of power by any measure. Even his frenemies among the establishment/DNC recognize this however grudgingly, hence their efforts to use this power and popularity to shore up the Dem's political fortunes in the wake of the disaster that was 2016 and prior.
 
Last edited:
His nomination did bring on the superdelegate system. Am I wrong?

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
wee he lost to the losing candidate. kind of like losing in semi-finals. That makes him 4th place. 4th place gets you nothing. It is also a description of how unpopular he actually is. There are more fascists in this country than liberals.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
So all this is about campaign finance reform? Note, as a senator he has failed to bring

campaign finance reform. He must not be very influencial.

The difference in being president and a candidate are obviouse. The pres has power and the candidate does not

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
Really? So McGovern existed in an environment without caucuses and with universal independent inclusion? Pretty sure that's not what history says, besides the fact that I have never claimed my proposal to be fool proof. As stated, 'more likely' != 'will always' in terms of generating better, more competitive nominee outcomes.



I'm not sure what his relative worth is as a nominee to his worth as a president, but I can certainly tell you with confidence that he was a better candidate than Hillary per all the numbers as they stood at the time and had a better chance than her.



I'm pretty sure that in light of his voting record, wholesale refusal to take corporate donations, stances (which have remained consistent), and his more glaring points of contrast with Hillary particularly in relation to things like UHC, money in politics and so on, no one except the most willfully ignorant could possibly confuse him with establishment neoliberal/third way politics, or even more ridiculously, establishment GOP politics. The distinction is pretty readily apparent even to fairly casual observers.

RE: Bernie's accomplishments: Bernie Sanders' accomplishments - Occasional Planet

As to the movement, Bernie hasn't gone anywhere, so how can you judge its ability to withstand his loss without that even happening? It hasn't 'survived without him' because it's never _been_ without him.

Concerning nationalization, the de facto nationalization of huge swaths of healthcare pretty readily comes to mind.

Being someone with first hand experience in the depths of Bernie's movement and dealing with the people there, I can tell you we understand pretty readily that he isn't the sort of hard socialist which means nationalization of all industry and public ownership of the means of production, and that 'social democrat' is the more accurate descriptor.

Finally, again, losing the nomination doesn't suddenly mean you're bereft of power. It is an impediment to be sure, but political power is expressed, developed and construed in all kinds of forms. Being a senator on the crest and at the lead of a prominent, rising and increasingly influential movement, while simultaneously being the most popular politico in the country and one of the most conspicuous and well known/recognized, is certainly a position of power by any measure. Even his frenemies among the establishment/DNC recognize this however grudgingly, hence their efforts to use this power and popularity to shore up the Dem's political fortunes in the wake of the disaster that was 2016 and prior.
Tried to look up accomplishments but the site was down.

You are a good debate, I give you that.


Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom