superdelegates, hypocrisy, and butthurt, meet facts.

[BlaqueKatt]

Ugh, so I've had this argument numerous times in the last two days, this is pretty much what happens when people that don't bother learning anything about the political process(or bother with history) decide to "get involved" and by get involved, I mean become keyboard warriors spouting off nonsense that they read in article by another political ignoramus with an agenda.

So here in 'murica, we've had exactly two of the 22 presidential primaries, the last one was 60% sanders, 40% for Hillary, however Hillary has the pledged support of the "superdelagates"(pledged support from superdelagates aren't a guarantee of votes, more on that later), and therefore, tenatively *won* the primary, and the butthurt flows like a river.(she's *stealing*, it's not fair, boohoo)

Ok, now onto the history, and exactly why it's nothing more than butthurt(and annoying as heck)

Superdelagtes were created in 1982, and have rarely been an issue unless races are very close(they're 20% of the amount of votes required to secure the nomination), they have decided a couple close races(Mondale-Hart for one). some information on what they do, and why they exist can be found here(it's short)

The utter hypocrisy, and why it's a nonissue.

Only 2 of 22 primaries have been held, currently Hillary has 50% of the superdelagates~360 of them(even if she had 100% she still needs 1601 more votes to win-she has 33 after 2 primararies), remember pledge=/=vote, in the 2008 election she had 90%, but many switched their vote to Obama at the DNC.

Which brings us to the hypocrisy. Not one peep out of anyone that I recall when Hillary won the popular vote in 2008 and Obama got the nomination through the superdelagates* that changed their pledged votes. Yet now because it's the candidate *they* like, it's a conspiracy.


*final tally was:
Obama-17,584,692 for 47.31% of the votes
Hillary-17,857,501 for 48.04% of the votes


for the record, I support Sanders, but will vote for whichever Dem gets the nomination. I've seen the article about the "stealing" votes by Hillary posted by so damn many people with something similar to "if Hillary wins, I'm not voting" toddler ragequit tantrums, it's disgusting. If you're going to act like a toddler, and not bother researching, maybe you shouldn't be voting in the first place, politics are probably not for you.

[HYHYBT]

What do you do with a relative who tends to go Republican while holding his nose, thinks Sanders is making the most sense this time around and the R's are nuts, but will vote for "anyone but Hillary" but won't say why? (Also supported Bill in 1992 once Perot dropped out.)

[Daskinor]

This election cycle is going to break all sorts of held beliefs before its all said and done. The republican nominees are all sorts of not good people whose ideologies not only do I not agree with find repulsive and Un-American. I know a few people who normally vote R, but are just not into this cycle.

My uncle is in the "Anyone but Hillary" camp. When asked why its normally the email issue and/or BENGHAZI!!!~!~! But I think it's equal parts of crap being thrown at her to see whats sticks for the last 20 or so years, and the fact she is a Woman. I brought up the Bush/RNC email scandal and he just brushed it off. Same reaction when Jeb did something similar and it took years for him to give up all the emails.

[Hyena Dandy]

It's not hypocritical to think something can be bullshit when it hurts her, and bullshit when it hurts someone I like, too. Superdelegates are an undemocratic idea that subverts the will of the people, whether the people are voting for Clinton or not.

Also, while I may not prefer the way that primaries apportion delegates, for the same reason I dont' prefer the way that the electoral college works, Obama did WIN the primary. While I don't think superdelegate votes should exist at all, if they were taken out, Obama would have won the primary purely on pledged votes.

[BlaqueKatt]

Superdelegates are an undemocratic idea that subverts the will of the people, whether the people are voting for Clinton or not.

unless you know WHY they exist, which I gave a link for, it boils down to many states don't require that only registered democrats are allowed to vote in the democratic primaries, so the vote can be skewed by other parties, the superdelegates exist to counter that. Unless you believe that allowing other parties to pick the democratic nominee is somehow "the will of the people".

Obama did WIN the primary. While I don't think superdelegate votes should exist at all, if they were taken out, Obama would have won the primary purely on pledged votes.

nope 2,118 were needed to win in 2008 he had 1766.5. the winning amount is based on clear 2/3rds majority of the pledged votes, 50% isn't a "win" the superdelegates usually count only in the event of close races.

[Hyena Dandy]

unless you know WHY they exist, which I gave a link for, it boils down to many states don't require that only registered democrats are allowed to vote in the democratic primaries, so the vote can be skewed by other parties, the superdelegates exist to counter that. Unless you believe that allowing other parties to pick the democratic nominee is somehow "the will of the people".

Then tell those states to stop doing that. A person who is voting in a primary should be able to expect that their voice should be heard.

I think allowing outside parties to pick it in an instance where they're told they can is indeed the will of the people. If you don't want independents being part of the primary, then don't let independents be part of the primary.

If you want independents out of the primary, take them out of the primary. Bringing them in then adding a bunch of people who don't have to listen to them is turning the whole thing into a Rock promo.

nope 2,118 were needed to win in 2008 he had 1766.5. the winning amount is based on clear 2/3rds majority of the pledged votes, 50% isn't a "win" the superdelegates usually count only in the event of close races.

You're arguing semantics. I thought better of you than that.

He won the majority of pledged delegates. Had the superdelegates supported Clinton, that would have gone against the way the primaries turned out. Which likely has something to do with why they didn't. While I think the person who wins the majority of the vote SHOULD win, just like they SHOULD win the presidential election, the rules as they were set up said Obama won. And the superdelegates supported the winner. Instead of Clinton, who lost the primary, and would have had to count on them supporting the person who lost, by the rules the people voting in the primary were told they were playing by.

Again, I think that the majority vote winner should be the winner. The rules as they exist don't make that happen. They make the one who won the state primaries the winner. And if that's going to be the case, the one who wins the state primaries will be the winner.

[Greenday]

Again, I think that the majority vote winner should be the winner.

If it's Trump, I'm going to disagree.

[Hyena Dandy]

If it's Trump, I'm going to disagree.

I don't want Trump to be President, but if Trump is elected to the office of President I want him to serve as President.

[Greenday]

I don't want Trump to be President, but if Trump is elected to the office of President I want him to serve as President.

I don't. My wife is an immigrant. Getting her a green card is hard enough as it is due to the ineptness of Customs. Add in insane immigration laws as a result of Trump wanting to keep out Mexicans and we'll suffer despite her not being Mexican.

It would be a crime against humanity to allow Trump to have any sway over laws or any decisions that affect America or the rest of the world.

[Hyena Dandy]

I have two options. Either support the democratic process, yet advocate for change, or take up arms against the government. The election of Trump would not be enough to turn me into an assassin, even if I thought myself capable of it. If he wins, he wins, and I'm pissed off about it and spend four years being angry he was elected. I can't rule out the possibility of him doing something to change my mind on that before then, but that is my plan.

I can imagine it's hard to help your wife stay in this country. I sympathize with that. As someone who relies on government benefits to survive, because I'm medically incapable of work, I'm terrified by him and any other Republican, since electing any of them could end up with me, eventually, forced to live on the streets, where I am 100% certain I would die or go insane. But I do support the democratic process, and the idea that, even if it will not select the best leader, the alternative would be worse.

[Greenday]

I like the idea of the democratic process. It's a good idea in theory. In reality, the average voter is extremely ill-informed and stupid and the two party system in America ensures we are screwed no matter what.

[s_stabeler]

The thing is, the Democrat Party has surprisingly little ability to control the primaries, IIRC- or at least, the national party can't. Therefore, the superdelegates can be seen as being the delegates from the national party, rather than the state-level parties. As such, it actually makes a degree of sense to have them- functionally, they represent the fact that the Democrat- and Republican- Party is more than a collection of state-level parties, and ALL parts of the party get a say in who the candidate is.

[TheHuckster]

I like the idea of the democratic process. It's a good idea in theory. In reality, the average voter is extremely ill-informed and stupid and the two party system in America ensures we are screwed no matter what.

What alternatives are there? Hereditary monarchy is no good, choosing an elite group to lead/choose a president is naive at best (who chooses the elite group, and what criteria do you use to determine who is elite, and who do you even choose to make what should impartial criteria, and finally how do you quell the inevitable mob rule from those who currently think Donald Trump should be president without turning society into an oppressive dystopia?), anarchy will last a maximum of one year before someone uses their strength to become de facto supreme ruler of all, and that leaves us with few government organization options left to choose from.

I think the democratic process as it's practiced America is flawed, especially with the two-party system and Super PAC lobbying we have today, but that doesn't mean democracy as a system in the big picture isn't the best system, though.

[wolfie]

I believe it was Sir Winston Churchill who said that democracy was the worst possible system of government - with the exception of all the others.

[s_stabeler]

strictly speaking, the issue with a hereditary monarchy is that there is no guarantee that the monarch will be competent. That, and different skill sets are needed to be Head of State in different situations. (for example, Winston Churchill was a brilliant PM to fight WW2. However, he was relatively crap in peacetime.(it's not anything wrong with him as such, he was just too much of a hawk to be a good leader post-war.(I remember reading somewhere he had plans to start a war with Russia after WW2. Regardless of the ethics of it, that would have been a disaster for the UK, because we were already in a pretty poor state from fighting a war that had dragged on for almost 6 years. Most of the country were heartily sick of war (sound familiar?) and nobody- except Churchill- was in the mood for another war that would likely drag on for absolutely ages, and be of dubious chances of success. Conversely, in peacetime, more diplomatic PMs are better- or, PMs that are good at dealing with the economy.