Thank you for that. (Reply #63) - Democratic Underground

In the discussion thread: What's this "superdelegate" thing? [View all]

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:05 PM

cheapdate (3,811 posts)

63. Thank you for that.

Maybe I already know what you think and maybe I don't. I'm not sure.

If I've got it right, you say that independent states with the explicit authority to establish internally consistent, constitutionally sound, and democratic processes for determining who shall be their choice for national leader is inherently unfair and "anti-democratic" if those states don't all go about it the same way.

Anyway, I agree with you that we've beat this thing to death.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

63 replies	Author	Time	Post
What's this "superdelegate" thing? [View all]	sibelian	Aug 2015	OP
It varies by state	HassleCat	Aug 2015	#1
But how does that affect the result?	sibelian	Aug 2015	#2
Each has one vote as a delegate. It's just that they are not bound	MineralMan	Aug 2015	#4
Why do we need them. Doesn't sound like a democracy to me if some are given special	RKP5637	Aug 2015	#9
It's not a democracy. It's a political party. In my native country of Canada, only party members	Metric System	Aug 2015	#14
Thanks!	RKP5637	Aug 2015	#15
It's not so much "special powers." They can just vote for whom they	MineralMan	Aug 2015	#17
Thanks for the additional information MM!	RKP5637	Aug 2015	#21
In practical terms	HassleCat	Aug 2015	#12
Frankly, the delegate count situation you propose seems to me to	MineralMan	Aug 2015	#20
I agree	HassleCat	Aug 2015	#22
Actually, the 2008 convention was pretty weird,	MineralMan	Aug 2015	#24
Think Orwell. Some votes are more equal than other votes.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Aug 2015	#3
Maybe we could have "supervoters" as well	tularetom	Aug 2015	#6
Just thinking about it, seems "Citizens United" has done just that, and was clearly a death call for	RKP5637	Aug 2015	#10
...	tammywammy	Aug 2015	#5
....... "Each state has its own ballot access laws to determine who may appear on ballots..."	sibelian	Aug 2015	#7
Tennessee, where I live, has some of the least restrictive ballot access laws	cheapdate	Aug 2015	#31
OK.	sibelian	Aug 2015	#37
It's just how our government is ordered.	cheapdate	Aug 2015	#39
I see.	sibelian	Aug 2015	#41
The United States is a federal system,	cheapdate	Aug 2015	#43
"Local control can be preferable to central control for a variety of reasons."	sibelian	Aug 2015	#48
I'm simply describing it and not justifying it.	cheapdate	Aug 2015	#50
Well, fair enough, but my goodness...	sibelian	Aug 2015	#51
There are various proposals to amend the U.S. constitution	cheapdate	Aug 2015	#58
OK, I will not argue the toss...	sibelian	Aug 2015	#60
Thank you for that.	cheapdate	Aug 2015	#63
sorry, tammy, I shoud probably have just gone and looked...	sibelian	Aug 2015	#8
After McGovern lost the election	sadoldgirl	Aug 2015	#11
.... magic people with giant votes.	sibelian	Aug 2015	#16
I probably shouldn't be too critical	sibelian	Aug 2015	#18
They are the Holy Shit Jessie Jackson could win this	Warren Stupidity	Aug 2015	#13
OK, that made me chuckle. But as another poster pointed out, I think it originated in the 70s to	Metric System	Aug 2015	#19
+1 nt	Zorra	Aug 2015	#52
They only exist to decide a close primary like 2008.	DemocratSinceBirth	Aug 2015	#23
OK.	sibelian	Aug 2015	#26
Elaborate	DemocratSinceBirth	Aug 2015	#28
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.	sibelian	Aug 2015	#35
This is how Mr. Obama became the ..........	mrmpa	Aug 2015	#25
That...is...	sibelian	Aug 2015	#27
Some states have primaries...Some states have caucuses...	DemocratSinceBirth	Aug 2015	#30
"...if she did not fight this commitment..."	sibelian	Aug 2015	#33
Many posters here are under the mistaken impression that you can win the nomination with a plurality	DemocratSinceBirth	Aug 2015	#38
That is NOT the issue I was reacting to, DemocratSinceBirth.	sibelian	Aug 2015	#40
What is your question?	DemocratSinceBirth	Aug 2015	#42
Here's a better question	sibelian	Aug 2015	#47
Not true.	MohRokTah	Aug 2015	#45
!	sibelian	Aug 2015	#53
Prior to 1972	1939	Aug 2015	#29
That is the BEST explanation and history of the super delegates	Le Taz Hot	Aug 2015	#49
The great elders of the Democratic Leadership were recognized by the Gods	HereSince1628	Aug 2015	#32
And, lo, the Great Blue Wall was patrolled forever	sibelian	Aug 2015	#34
The whole thing sounds like some weird fantasy cooked up by MANNY.	sibelian	Aug 2015	#36
By a margin of 67 to 26 superdelegates prefer Hillary on Bongos compared to Bernies Singing	HereSince1628	Aug 2015	#46
It's what you cling to	AgingAmerican	Aug 2015	#44
Well. THAT's bad.	sibelian	Aug 2015	#54
In 2008, Superdelegats voted: Barack Obama 562.5, Hillary Clinton 211.5 they did not affect electio	Agnosticsherbet	Aug 2015	#55
"The chance of them having any affect on the election is quite remote."	sibelian	Aug 2015	#56
They are really there to tip the nomination should nobody get the required 50%+1	MohRokTah	Aug 2015	#57
They are also there to blunt the effectiveness of an insurgent candidate.	Adrahil	Aug 2015	#62
It is the powers that be antidemocracy emergency escape hatch	TheKentuckian	Aug 2015	#59
Just in case the people don't agree.	mmonk	Aug 2015	#61

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.