Wow, you were pretty hard on yourself DADDY, just one of those superlatives would have sufficiently described you....... LOL
Aw, I wanted to give a full effect of my persona.......................................
I actually had some more “superlatives” to offer. I love that $10 word.
But seriously,
Actually, the electoral college was formed to keep large municipalities from monopolizing the elections. In other words, if all of the population gathered on one coast, then that one section of people would be governing for the whole country. With the electoral college, every section of the nation has their expression heard. Hope this helps.
It still sounds like the government is still “in control” of my vote no matter who I vote for. For instance, if I voted for HUCK - that vote, through the electoral college and group vote, could be changed and go demo................
I know sometimes I may be one gear short of a 5-speed but this is how I understand it. Thanks for your explanation Deon!
First of all, on the electoral college, it has worked for 200+ years, I don’t think anything that this generation can add (or subtract) will improve upon what the founding fathers did. It is another way for the individual states to have influence and not have all the power centralized in the federal govt. It is also another proof that the founders did not envision our Republic to be a strict democracy, which it is not and shouldn’t be. A democracy could lead to various problems including a majority suppressing minorities and the country being led exclusively by the whim of large population centers.
Second, on the Super Delegates, this is really a poor setup but I believe the party has a right to do it the way they want. I can’t really see it as disenfranchisement since it is not the general election and it is the party’s responsibility to choose their candidate.
Second, on the Super Delegates, this is really a poor setup but I believe the party has a right to do it the way they want. I can’t really see it as disenfranchisement since it is not the general election and it is the party’s responsibility to choose their candidate.
I agree 100% with that, and I’m a Democrat. It’s a little baffling that Democrats would elect to do something non-democratic, but Democrats elected by the people came up with this method of doing it.
Second, on the Super Delegates, this is really a poor setup but I believe the party has a right to do it the way they want. I can’t really see it as disenfranchisement since it is not the general election and it is the party’s responsibility to choose their candidate.
I agree 100% with that, and I’m a Democrat. It’s a little baffling that Democrats would elect to do something non-democratic, but Democrats elected by the people came up with this method of doing it.
No, I don’t think that Democrats elected by the people who came up with this method. It was the DNC who came up with this method. The same ones who determined that ALL the Democrats in Michigan and Florida will not have their votes counted. It the party big wigs, not people voted in. What right do they have to deny voters their right to have their vote counted. Remember in 2000, every vote needed to be counted. They were then, over and over again, and Bush still won, but it’s just typical of the DNC trying to control votes.
That is true, but I still think it is their right to pick their nominee any way they want to. It is not the way I would suggest, but they still have that right.
It can’t really be disenfranchisement if it is not a general election, they are not electing the President this way, they are simply choosing their nominee this way.
I’m not caring much either way though, I just hope neither of them (Obama or Clinton) win the general election.
First of all, on the electoral college, it has worked for 200+ years, I don’t think anything that this generation can add (or subtract) will improve upon what the founding fathers did. It is another way for the individual states to have influence and not have all the power centralized in the federal govt. It is also another proof that the founders did not envision our Republic to be a strict democracy, which it is not and shouldn’t be. A democracy could lead to various problems including a majority suppressing minorities and the country being led exclusively by the whim of large population centers.
Second, on the Super Delegates, this is really a poor setup but I believe the party has a right to do it the way they want. I can’t really see it as disenfranchisement since it is not the general election and it is the party’s responsibility to choose their candidate.
What does disenfranchisement have to do with what election it is? A person can be disenfranchised over the dog catcher election.
I think disenfranchisement would apply to a vote or election where you should have the right to participate (the dog catcher election, if there is such a thing, would certainly apply). However, during a primary, you do not necessarily have the right to participate. Such as in most cases, registered republicans would not be able to vote in the democratic primary. These republicans would not be disenfranchised, even though they are not allowed to vote.
Second, on the Super Delegates, this is really a poor setup but I believe the party has a right to do it the way they want. I can’t really see it as disenfranchisement since it is not the general election and it is the party’s responsibility to choose their candidate.
I agree 100% with that, and I’m a Democrat. It’s a little baffling that Democrats would elect to do something non-democratic, but Democrats elected by the people came up with this method of doing it.
No, I don’t think that Democrats elected by the people who came up with this method. It was the DNC who came up with this method. The same ones who determined that ALL the Democrats in Michigan and Florida will not have their votes counted. It the party big wigs, not people voted in. What right do they have to deny voters their right to have their vote counted. Remember in 2000, every vote needed to be counted. They were then, over and over again, and Bush still won, but it’s just typical of the DNC trying to control votes.
Could you be more specific? Which big wigs are you referring to? All the super delegates I know were indeed elected by the people, although they weren’t elected specifically as super delegates. Democrats elect leaders, and the leaders came up with this system. If Democrat voters do not like it, they vote for different leaders. It’s an indirect system, but so is the electorial college.
Second, on the Super Delegates, this is really a poor setup but I believe the party has a right to do it the way they want. I can’t really see it as disenfranchisement since it is not the general election and it is the party’s responsibility to choose their candidate.
I agree 100% with that, and I’m a Democrat. It’s a little baffling that Democrats would elect to do something non-democratic, but Democrats elected by the people came up with this method of doing it.
No, I don’t think that Democrats elected by the people who came up with this method. It was the DNC who came up with this method. The same ones who determined that ALL the Democrats in Michigan and Florida will not have their votes counted. It the party big wigs, not people voted in. What right do they have to deny voters their right to have their vote counted. Remember in 2000, every vote needed to be counted. They were then, over and over again, and Bush still won, but it’s just typical of the DNC trying to control votes.
Every vote should be counted, but this is only concerning the primaries. They will definitely be able to get their votes out and heard in the general election. My hope is that they are so upset with how they were treated by the democrats in the primaries that they will vote republican in November. We will be happy to have and count their votes.
Could you be more specific? Which big wigs are you referring to? All the super delegates I know were indeed elected by the people, although they weren’t elected specifically as super delegates. Democrats elect leaders, and the leaders came up with this system. If Democrat voters do not like it, they vote for different leaders. It’s an indirect system, but so is the electorial college.
The regular delegates are analogous to the Electoral College, as they are representing the will of the voters in the most recent primaries and caucuses. Super delegates add an extra layer of indirect...several layers, in some cases.
“Superdelegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention include all Democratic members of the United States Congress, Democratic governors, various additional elected officials, members of the Democratic National Committee, as well as “all former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.”
(quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate)
Even Jimmy Carter gets a vote.
(Maybe John F. Kennedy, too, if the Wikipedia article is to be considered authoritative. It doesn’t specify if super delegates have to be among the living...in fact, the word “all” is employed, which would indicate that even the dead former this and that can vote.)
Remember in 2000, every vote needed to be counted.
That is pretty funny and the ultimate irony when you think about it. When it was the national election on the line in 2000, every ballot in Florida had to be examined and held up to the light to determine the voter’s “intent.” Eight years later when it’s their own people running against each other, the Democrats write off the entire state of Florida as unworthy of participating.
I read the 60% at large 40% superdelegate article. If my math is correct that means that a candidate could get the nomination by only getting 21% of the states delegates, assuming that the superdelegates all stick together.
That means a democratic candidate could potentially win the states vote by an overwhelming majority, but not get the nomination because of the power of the super delegates.
If the dems really wanted super delegates to decide only in close races, they would have only allocated about 10% of the vote to them. That way, if one candidate had 46% and one had 44%, then they could decide a close race. The way it is, they can decide ANY race.
My grandpa was a Southern Democrat until he died, but this ain’t the same party he supported.
[ Edited: 26 February 2008 09:22 AM by FamilyMan ]
