Super Delegates

[bvc]

What are everyones thoughts on them?
[begin rant]
I think it's a mockery of the supposed democratic system we are supposed to have. Basically it is not at all constitutional, but if the people don't demand that it stop, it is the peoples fault they have a two party system that is not for and by the people and that nothing ever changes. All these people hoping on the slogan campaign of 'change' concert don't even know what that change is or care what that change may bring. The best way to get change is to get the power back into the hands of the people. Otherwise it's all empty promises from one party that calls itself two. Wake up already! Your vote is a joke!
[end of rant]

[cheewiee]

I don't think that they are necessarly democratic, but they are not unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not dictate how a political Party goes about nominating a candidate for President. Really, they could just draw straws and that wouldn't be unconstitutional.

Actually when you think about how Presidents were first elected, by votes in the State Legislature, and not direct by the people well lets just say, Our Country wasn't set up to be a democracy, it was set up to be Republic led by democraticy elected people.

[Valpo]

Truth is the primary system is by far the most democratic we have been in selecting our presidents. No longer are the days of back room meetings at the capitol where each party selected their next in line. Even for those who feel he was dealt a bad hand by the media, a candidate like Ron Paul is never entered into the fray if we had the pure party selection of a candidate like we did not too long ago. In the same way, a man like John McCain would certainly not be the candidate given how he is not 100% in line with Conservatism or Republicanism. On the other side of the ball a John Edwards or Kucinich, as kooky as he is, would never be given any time to run for president because there is no chance the Democratic establishment would have considered or chosen either man.

The primary system, although certainly flawed, is the most democratic system we have seen in this country.

All in all the super delegates do vote "what the people" have chosen. In many ways they are similar to electors of the electoral college. The only way I could see super delegates not voting the way of their state is in a brokered convention, but I do not see that happening this year.

[bvc]

I don't think that they are necessarly democratic, but they are not unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not dictate how a political Party goes about nominating a candidate for President. Really, they could just draw straws and that wouldn't be unconstitutional.

Actually when you think about how Presidents were first elected, by votes in the State Legislature, and not direct by the people well lets just say, Our Country wasn't set up to be a democracy, it was set up to be Republic led by democraticy elected people.Right -a republic- correct, but sd's are not elected by the people to have their power vote. How is that not unconstitutional? Or maybe a better question is, how is that a Republic? I'm not a constitutional lawyer but, seeing how this takes the power out of the hands of the people to decide who the likely candidates for prez are......?

True, the people are free to start another party and do it their own way. I see the point.

[bvc]

All in all the super delegates do vote "what the people" have chosen. In many ways they are similar to electors of the electoral college. The only way I could see super delegates not voting the way of their state is in a brokered convention, but I do not see that happening this year.what do you base this on?

[Valpo]

what do you base this on?

the fact that the democratically elected "presumptive" nominee in the primary era has always been voted on at the convention as the party's nominee

[bvc]

In the same way, a man like John McCain would certainly not be the candidate given how he is not 100% in line with Conservatism or Republicanism.Tell that to gwb and his daddy who are not at all conservative.

[bvc]

the fact that the democratically elected "presumptive" nominee in the primary era has always been voted on at the convention as the party's nomineeI do not know that to be true. I will have to look into that more closely.

[bvc]

the fact that the democratically elected "presumptive" nominee in the primary era has always been voted on at the convention as the party's nomineewhat exactly is the point in having them? This is something I've never really looked into deeply.

[cheewiee]

Right -a republic- correct, but sd's are not elected by the people to have their power vote. How is that not unconstitutional? Or maybe a better question is, how is that a Republic? I'm not a constitutional lawyer but, seeing how this takes the power out of the hands of the people to decide who the likely candidates for prez are......?

True, the people are free to start another party and do it their own way. I see the point.

Where in the Constitution does it say that a Party must nominate a candidate by election?

The fact is, it doesn't. So they could have a thumb war competition, and it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

The Constitution is silent as to how a political party should select its nominee...

Actually the constitution is completly silent on political parties all together.

[Valpo]

Tell that to gwb and his daddy who are not at all conservative.

Well that's a) debatable and b) they are establishment but even further c) both selected in the primary/caucus system. So maybe they wouldn't have been selected behind closed doors, but come to think of it I don't know that Ronald Reagan would have been either.

[bvc]

Where in the Constitution does it say that a Party must nominate a candidate by election?

The fact is, it doesn't. So they could have a thumb war competition, and it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

The Constitution is silent as to how a political party should select its nominee...

Actually the constitution is completly silent on political parties all together.The Electoral College is governed by the Constitution (Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment) and they are elected officials that cast votes. No thumb war competition. By law it is by election else this is not a republic or democracy! An sd doesn't have to be elected and many are not. Technically there is nothing in the Constitution that says a party can't add to that with their own 'super delegates' system, but doesn't the existence of law for Electors in the Constitution say something for how we elect the highest office in the country? That is why it is there and the reason we have it, is it not? If someone wants to change how the President is elected they need a constitutional amendment, period. Constitutional silence against an unseen future addition to the Constitutional system without an amendment, doesn't make it ok. There must be an amendment to the Constitution.

Many sd's are not elected officials, yet they have two votes for President, one having a much greater significance than the other. The one with a greater significance is not afforded to them by the Constitution. I'm not elected, and I don't get two votes, much less a significant one, do you?

[bvc]

Well that's a) debatable and b) they are establishment but even further c) both selected in the primary/caucus system. So maybe they wouldn't have been selected behind closed doors, but come to think of it I don't know that Ronald Reagan would have been either.a) not debatable b-c)they are all members of the establishment. Every President since Kennedy has been, and that will continue til the people stand up (which won't happen).

[Valpo]

a) not debatable b-c)they are all members of the establishment. Every President since Kennedy has been, and that will continue til the people stand up (which won't happen).

I think it is very debatable since you made an outlandish "not at all" conservative statement. If you said they aren't 100% conservative I would agree that is not debatable.

With this primary system however, there is a greater chance for the more obscure guy to get face time. Whether they win or not is another story I suppose.

[cheewiee]

The Electoral College is governed by the Constitution (Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment) and they are elected officials that cast votes. No thumb war competition. By law it is by election else this is not a republic or democracy! An sd doesn't have to be elected and many are not. Technically there is nothing in the Constitution that says a party can't add to that with their own 'super delegates' system, but doesn't the existence of law for Electors in the Constitution say something for how we elect the highest office in the country? That is why it is there and the reason we have it, is it not? If someone wants to change how the President is elected they need a constitutional amendment, period. Constitutional silence against an unseen future addition to the Constitutional system without an amendment, doesn't make it ok. There must be an amendment to the Constitution.

Many sd's are not elected officials, yet they have two votes for President, one having a much greater significance than the other. The one with a greater significance is not afforded to them by the Constitution. I'm not elected, and I don't get two votes, much less a significant one, do you?

Again, you didn't answer the question... Where in the Constitution does it say how a Party must select it's nominee?

It doesn't, how a party selects it's nominee has nothing to do with the electoral college....

[bvc]

I think it is very debatable since you made an outlandish "not at all" conservative statement. If you said they aren't 100% conservative I would agree that is not debatable.conservative is small limited government. Neither Bush's can possibly fall under that definition. I'd like to see anyone say otherwise and back it up with fact. Now if your definition includes other belief's you could argue gwb is conservative but you'd be standing on a spin.

[bvc]

Again, you didn't answer the question... Where in the Constitution does it say how a Party must select it's nominee?

It doesn't, how a party selects it's nominee has nothing to do with the electoral college....I never said it did and didn't say the electoral college has anything to do with selecting a nominee. I know I am not wording my thoughts well and I apologize but what I said was

What are everyones thoughts on them?

I think it's a mockery of the supposed democratic system we are supposed to have. Basically it is not at all constitutional, but [B]if the people don't demand that it stop, it is the peoples fault they have a two party system that is not for and by the people and that nothing ever changes. All these people hoping on the slogan campaign of 'change' concert don't even know what that change is or care what that change may bring. The best way to get change is to get the power back into the hands of the people. Otherwise it's all empty promises from one party that calls itself two. Wake up already! Your vote is a joke!
[end of rant]It's not that past elections were 'unconstitutional'.....
oh gotta go (at work), I'll edit and finish tomorrow.

[cheewiee]

Hey, so don't get me wrong, I think the Superdelgate thing is totally not democratic whatsoever... but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

[bvc]

All anyone has to do is research the history and beginning of 'super delegates'.
I mean until 1968 (hint, hint) the will of the people prevailed to some degree because the entire election process was ran constitutionally. Meaning only elected officials had special votes. If the parties were to apply this elected special vote to the nomination I couldn't have much to say could I? Super delegates do not have to be elected and many are not and it raises the number of special votes dramatically, greatly increasing the chance of steering the nomination in their favor. Who are they? It is very sad to hear people complain of special interest groups, industrial military contracts, pork barrel spending-corrupt lawyers turned politician, then turn around and be proud to call themselves republican or democrat and be proud of these parties that only in recent history have devised a way to steer the nomination in their favor.

Want change that is good for the people? Then you'll either have to change the way nominees are chosen, or start another party that will follow the wisdom of the Constitution.

Did I make more sense there?