mistergone: Thought Experiment for the Day

Mister Gone (

mistergone) wrote,
@ 2008-04-23 15:43:00

Entry tags:

politics

Thought Experiment for the Day
OMG CONTENT WARNING - POLITICS: Does anyone believe that the Democratic Party could continue to exist if the nominee was not the person leading the delegate count at the end of the state primary and caucus procedure? (Note that before the changes of 1982, this person would have won the nomination without any support from previously non-existent superdelegates.)

The whole "superdelegate" thing was introduced to give party leaders more power, but if they use that power to override the party's rank and file (and in many cases, the people who elected them to their own offices), does anyone believe the Democrat's hoi polloi would put up with this sort of oligarchical kingmaking?

As I said yesterday, I'm not really a Democrat. I'm just really curious if people think an organization with "democratic" in the title could continue onward once they abandoned democracy for kleptocracy.

(Post a new comment)

bryguypgh
2008-04-23 08:24 pm UTC (link)

It's more comlicated than that, those superdelegates are, by and large, elected officials chosen by voters, and often subject to primary contests themselves. They're not just random fatcats, they're Democrats' Democrats. The procedures are well known and have been in place, as you point out, for over 25 years. I think it would be politically problematic for them, but not actually hypocritical at all. I hope it doesn't happen only because I want to see a Democrat elected in November, not because I think my vote will have been appreciably diluted.

(Reply to this)

zaph
2008-04-23 08:33 pm UTC (link)

Exist? Yes. Win another election? No.

And I don't think it'll happen, either, despite what people are saying now. Just because someone has said they'll vote for a candidate at the convention doesn't mean they will, because they're not bound to. I think Tom Daschle had it right - they'll vote for the delegate leader and winner of the popular vote. He even said outright that he would vote for Hillary at the convention if she were ahead in delegates and votes, despite being an Obama supporter himself.

I think the eventual solution should be to replace the superdelegates with 'at-large delegates', decided by the national popular vote in the primaries. (For that matter, I think there should be at-large electors in presidential elections, too, giving the national popular vote at least some weight.)

(Reply to this)

apestyle
2008-04-23 08:46 pm UTC (link)

If the Democratic superdelegates went against the popular vote and put the trailer in there, I know that I'd leave the party. What would be the point of the democratic process? I feel the same way about the Electoral College, btw. When it goes contrary to the popular vote, I just want to walk away from American politics and concentrate on something that I feel I have a voice in.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	mistergone 2008-04-23 09:51 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, Electoral College is whole other fucked up thing. But "one vote for one candidate" is similarly fucked up when there's a bunch of intelligent alternatives, like "Rate these candidates in order of preference" and the easy possibility of run-off elections and stuff. Other countries are now doing democracy better. We cannot allow a democracy gap! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

dales
2008-04-24 02:08 pm UTC (link)

SRSLY!

The point of the primary system is to avoid having two similar candidates in the final election "steal" votes from each other and thereby give the election to some third candidate. (And then the Green party goes and ruins it anyway.)

This could be achieved with _less_ expense and _less_ complication by using a Condorcet system (I spit on IRV!) for the final election; then, just let all the candidates run.

People accuse Condorcet of being more complicated then our current system, but that's simply not the case if you include the primaries as part of the current system.

(That said, I can understand the goals the electoral college was trying to achieve, but we've thrown half of those advantages away by (almost all) states tying all their electoral votes go to the winner of the state-wide popular vote.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	r_transpose_p 2008-04-23 09:06 pm UTC (link)
	I think you're preaching to the choir. (Reply to this)(Thread)

mistergone
2008-04-23 09:48 pm UTC (link)

I'm not really preaching, I'm just curious, really, what the fuck is going on there. I mean, at this point, one person needs to win each state by a great margin (68%) to win the delegate count.

Furthermore, do the superdelegates really have a say? Is the power invested in them invested wisely? It seems to me if the superdelegates are beholden to the popular vote, then they are mere figureheads, which is fine. If they are not beholden, then they are oligarchical kingmakers, which I would assume is not fine.

I guess I am a Democrat by paper, so my opinion matters on paper, so it seems to me superdelegates are a really fucked up thing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

c_star
2008-04-24 03:53 pm UTC (link)

I think that it woudl still exist, and most likely the candidate could/would still win the gerneal election. People are stupid and we already had an election where the winner of the popular vote did not get the presidency so it is not outside of public conceniousness and the public outcry was minimal. i think the whole process is outdated and ridiculous, either go with one person one vote system for the elections and or instant run off elections. I think one of the biggest problems with this country int he adherance to the two party system and the inability for anyone new to get in. and Instant run off with multiple canididates means that you get more ideas and perspectives into the mix.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	mistergone 2008-04-24 04:37 pm UTC (link)
	The difference is that the elections are decided by electoral college, not popular vote. Also, the country was already divided in that election. The Democratic party is not currently divided. But that could do it permanently. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…