OpEdNews Op Eds

"Super-Delegates" - more like "Super-UnDemocratic"

      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 8061
- Advertisement -
Ron Corvus says: This is how Hillary will defeat Obama for the nomination.

The Evil-ass "Super Delegates" will select the "old Washington" candidate via "Super Delegates." "Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination." CNN reported today that a poll of super delegates indicated Hillary was their choice. In other words, "old Washington" super delegates will elect the "old Washington" candidate. This is why I predict Obama will lose the Democratic Party nomination to Hillary Clinton, due to the undemocratic "super delegate" scam system. Our election process needs a major overhaul, starting with the elimination of these damn old Washington "Super Delegates." The Republicans do not have a similar super-delegate system. Super delegates can change their mind at will, at the last minute, for whomever they want to nominate. Currently, you have no representation.

What role for Democratic 'super-delegates'?Governors, senators, state chairs, and even Bill Clinton get automatic vote
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/
By Tom Curry
WASHINGTON - It’s called the Democratic Party, but one aspect of the party’s nominating process is at odds with grass-roots democracy.

Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.

The category includes Democratic governors and members of Congress, former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, retired congressional leaders such as Dick Gephardt, and all Democratic National Committee members, some of whom are appointed by party chairman Howard Dean.

- Advertisement -

The Republicans do not have a similar super-delegate system.

These super-delegates don’t have superhuman powers, but unlike rank-and-file Democrats, they do automatically get to cast a vote at the convention to decide who the party’s nominee will be.

Although dubbed “unpledged” in Democratic Party lingo, the super-delegates are free to come out before their state’s primary and pledge to support one of the presidential contenders.

On Tuesday Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski announced she was supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton and three weeks ago, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine declared that he's also backing her. These aren't mere endorsements; these are actual votes putting Clinton two steps closer to the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination.

Why the 'super-delegate' system?
Why did the party adopt this partly undemocratic system?

- Advertisement -

Super-delegates were supposed to supply some Establishment stability to the nominating process.

Before 1972, party elders, such as Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Charlie Buckley, the boss of The Bronx who helped John Kennedy clinch the 1960 nomination, wielded inordinate power.

But in early 1970’s, the party’s rules were reformed to open the process to grass-roots activists, women, and ethnic minorities.

Sen. George McGovern, the leading anti-Vietnam war liberal, won the 1972 nomination. McGovern turned out to be a disaster as a presidential candidate, winning only one state and the District of Columbia.

So without reverting to the days of party bosses like Buckley, the Democrats decided to guarantee that elected officials would have a bigger voice in the nomination.

On the ballot with the candidate
“There was a belief that they would not want candidates who were dramatically out of sync with the rest of the party — particularly if these were people who were going to have to run on the same ticket with them,” says Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer, who has written extensively on the nomination process.

There were, Mayer says, two motives in giving elected officials a big voice in the nomination.

“One was not to get (ideologically) extreme candidates; the other was to avoid the Jimmy Carter phenomenon — where you had a guy who was not very experienced and not very well regarded by most of his fellow governors, but nevertheless managed to win the party’s nomination,” Mayer said.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://www.RonCorvus.com

Ron Corvus wrote the Independent Voter Platform; See, http://www.RonCorvus.com/ivp.htm http://www.RonCorvus.com

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact EditorContact Editor
- Advertisement -
Google Content Matches:

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

"Why America Sucks"

New Hampshire Election Fraud

Range Voting and the Two-Party system

Ending The War On Terror

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend


Copyright © 2002-2016, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum