Is it any wonder that when you analyze the statistical detail in nearly every article regarding the delegate situation, the numbers either don't add up, or they simply don't seem to make sense. The reason for this is that the governing rules on both sides of the proverbial aisle have become nearly as complicated as the mother-of-all mazes, the internal revenue service code.
The overall situation makes more sense, however, so the best approach is to simply ignore the detail. In this vein, MSNBC says that, following Super Tuesday, Obama had 861 delegates while Clinton had 855. Other analysts put Clinton slightly ahead. In any event, there is little doubt that they are currently running roughly neck and neck with about 860 delegates each. There are a total of 4,049 Democratic delegates and a simple majority, or 2,025, will be needed to win the nomination. Thus, the candidates have achieved a little over 40% of their target number.
On the Republican side, McCain now has 721 delegates, Huckabee has 195 and Paul has 14. Romney seems to be sitting tight on his 265 delegates. There are a total of 2,380 delegates, meaning that 1,191 will be required to win. McCain, therefore, has 60% of his target number and he only needs to win 40% of the remaining available delegates to secure the nomination.
And, despite the fact that the system could well be called a bureaucratic jungle gym, two eventualities are becoming quite clear.
One, on the Republican side, is the increasingly obvious fact that McCain should have the necessary delegates well before the primary season is over.
The other, on the Democratic side, is that neither candidate will have enough delegates to win at the conclusion of the primary season, a likely fact that has already moved the real battle into an entirely different arena.
The major reason for this is that the distribution of delegates for the Democrats is now universally by Congressional districts, as opposed to winner-take-all contests. This has the obvious effect of minimizing the impact of any statewide victory.
For example, Clinton won California 52% to 42%, subject to possible revisions as the counting continues, but despite the fact that 370 delegates were up for grabs, her actual advantage will only fall somewhere between 30 and 40 delegates.
It's even possible that a candidate with the most statewide votes could end up with fewer delegates than his or her opponent, depending on the vote distribution between districts.
And yet, in order to achieve victory from the contests that are still to be held, the numbers contained in this article reveal that one of the two Democratic candidates would have to win 76% of all the remaining delegates available in those contests, a most unlikely scenario.
Putting the unique issues of Michigan and Florida aside for a moment, it now appears, therefore, that the outcome of the race will come down to what the Democratic Party calls its superdelegates.
The superdelegates, created in 1982, are made up of members of Congress, governors and party officials who will each cast one vote on the convention floor, the same as regular delegates. There are 796 superdelegates for the two candidates to fight over. (For anyone who might wish to confirm that all-important 76% number in the second paragraph back, don't forget to deduct the superdelegates from the total, since the 76% figure relates only to the remaining contests.)
Clinton previously announced that she was in the lead for pledges from the superdelegates but Obama says he's now catching up. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and many other shakers and movers will be continuing to put pressure on these 796 critical "deciders" over the next six and one-half months.
Meanwhile, getting back to the Michigan and Florida situation, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, hasn't yet announced whether he'll allow the delegates from those states to be seated. The matter revolves around the fact that they didn't follow the prescribed protocol in moving up their primary dates. The two states account for 366 delegates and Clinton would receive the majority, if they are allowed to vote, which is considered likely at this point.
Although this issue may become heated before it's resolved, the impact of the Michigan and Florida delegates would, again, be less than it should seemingly be because of the method of allocation by Congressional District.
So, regardless of Dean's decision, the candidates will, undoubtedly, still have to look to the pool of superdelegates to achieve a victory at what will be called a "brokered convention," a term last used in 1952.
This brings us to the one big question that seems to arise from all this, and that relates to whether this is a flawed system in the first place. The combination of allocating delegates by Congressional districts together with the fact that 20% of the delegates are superdelegates has produced a bitter cocktail.
At least two significant problems are apparent.
One has to do with the disenfranchisement of the electorate, a particularly sensitive subject of late. Under the present Democratic system, any close race between two or more candidates will be destined to take the ultimate decision out of the hands of the voters, and give it to a relatively small cadre of politicians.
The other problem is financial. In such close races, the enormous cost of all the Democratic primaries and caucuses will be foredoomed as far as achieving its intended purpose of determining a candidate. And there may well be additional costs to the taxpayers related to the promises being made to secure the support of the superdelegates.
Clearly, this is a good deal for the insiders and a very bad deal for the electorate/taxpayers.
The superdelegates must go - but, will they?
Dave McGill, News Correspondent
Dave's column, "The Contrarian," generally published every Wednesday, to Gather Essentials: News will sometimes present a contrary view to various aspects of the news, or an alternate take on the conventional wisdom of the day, and will occasionally also appear on other days of the week
Dave has been a senior officer of a large eastern insurance company, involved in economic projections and investment strategy, president of a Midwestern mortgage banking company, and a financial consultant in Southern California, serving clients in the field of commercial real estate development
You can find all of Dave's "The Contrarian" columns at: http://gather.com/thecontrarian...... Keep up with Dave's other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network - just click here: http://atadaskew.gather.com........ You'll find Dave and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 74
Too bad....It's a slap at the enormous outpouring of voter enthusiasm that has been seen on the Democratic side...
As David said, The superdelegates, created in 1982, are made up of members of Congress, governors and party officials who will each cast one vote on the convention floor, the same as regular delegates.
There isn't much real difference, in power or authority. The only difference between a regular delegate, and a superdelegate is this-- superdelegates have not been elected by state primaries or caucuses. They are appointed; that's about the only real difference.
I agree the scenario David paints is true; what I reject is the notion this is some sort of corrupt way of doing things, that a handful of people will simply select which candidate they want, based on some "back room deals" of unspecified nefarious intent.
Everything is a conspiracy to David, every rule created with evil in mind, to subjegate the masses in plain sight. He's a drama queen, plain and simple.
About 1/5 of the delegates at the DNC will be superdelegates, so the fact is, all Obama or Hillary has to do, is win by one vote, and no "back room deals" will occur.
I always wonder why people like to see problems where none exist.
Only on the first vote-- after than it's anything goes for ALL delegates, not just the superdelegates.
In the end the Electorial College will elect the president
*chuckle* Yes, that's true, but you make it sound like some deep dark method of screwing the people out of their vote. The fact is I believe EVERY state's electors to the Electoral College are voted on by the state's legislature. These votes directly reflect the votes of the delegates from the primaries, and are cast at a state convention, rather than the national convention.
That is up to state law, some states require it, some states don't.
Anyway, the points you raise ARE of great concern to me also ... for those of us that might think not the very highest of our "elected" officials ... and those so "high up" in the parties, one (such as I anyway) might just come to wonder just how much say us "little people" have in the selection of the eventual winner ... ??? Darn, I forgot again ... jJ just has to know the truth of that ... or is it only the republicans that are so honest and all jJ ?
So I guess then that IF we ever deemed it necessary to really "clean house" of dirty politicians ... it might just be the foxes (super-delegates guarding the hen house) that determine IF we can or not ... it just doesn't seem right somehow ...
So carolyn if I waited to vote would I be a super delegate?
Here's a thought experiment. The convention comes along and two things happen.
1 - Obama has the greater number of delegates by 1.
2 - Polls say that Obama is beaten severely by McCain, where Clinton stands a chance.
What do they do?
The point here is that the system has become geared to put the decision in the hands of a few insiders. Some might think that's just fine. I don't, but I agree that it may make for a more interesting convention.
If it goes beyond the first ballot and delegates start shifting their choices then, in retrospect, the will of the people will have been even further subverted.
Given the track records of the pollsters, it might not be appropriate to base a decision on what they may predict.
The purpose of this article is to make the point for discussion that the system should be devised in such a way as to give the decision to the voters, not to take the decision away from them.
The discussion has brought up some interesting points and I appreciate your comments.
> to put the decision in the hands of a few insiders.
I don't think that is true, or at least a correct way to
characterize this. We desperately need some input
by people who know what they are talking about and
have a stake in the outcome.
For instance, today I just realized that Barack Obama
never voted in the Senate against the war on Iraq.
Barack took office in the US Senate Jan. 2005. He did
speak out on he war from his seat as an Illinois State
legislator. I don't think that is a well known fact, and
I think is germane as are lots of things that the people
do not or cannot take into consideration.
I normally post about how I detest the influence of
corporations or the rich, but the honest truth is
that these influences are or can be a huge plus,
because these are the people who know and do.
I am against excessive or corrupting influence, but
how does that get determined objectively.
I'm reading an pop economics book right now that
brings up an interesting question. Say it is the night
before the election, and you have to do two things
tomorrow, 1 - vote, and 2 - buy a new stereo.
Which do you think most people would spend more
time on? Naturally it is the stereo and that is a rational
decision according to the author because of the way we
value things. Any one persons power to influence the
election is so minor that they rarely devote many resources
to it. That is why we need representatives, and have a
delegate process, plus why else would anyone do this
crappy job anyway! ;-)
> discussion that the system should be devised in
> such a way as to give the decision to the voters,
> not to take the decision away from them.
If I disagree with that thesis should I not be posting
here?
As to REpubs, do you think McCain will choose Romney? Romney OBVIOUSLY wants that - and I know tha tMcCain will only do so if he feels it is in his best advantage to do so;
That's just plain WRONG.
If it goes beyond the first ballot and delegates start shifting their choices then, in retrospect, the will of the people will have been even further subverted.
conspiracy conspiracy conspiracy--- you're a parrot that only knows one word.
The purpose of this article is to make the point for discussion that the system should be devised in such a way as to give the decision to the voters, not to take the decision away from them.
It's NEVER been taken away. We are using virtually the exact same system that was used 200 years ago.
I heard Senator Claire McCaskill's name mentioned as a potential running mate for Obama.
In other words, this Democratic Party selection process, at least for this year, is pretty much in line with how our founders thought was best.
Besides, given the nature of the money we use it would be pretty much the same no matter how the formal arrangements said it should be. Money corrupts and there's lots of money at stake.
What we are talking about here is the electoral college and how the political parties use versions of it to select candidates. Should we get rid of the electoral college? This is open for debate.
I am a partisan Democrat. Have been since Eisenhower defeated Harry Truman. That election was a war election. Truman wanted to limit the Korean Conflict to Korea, and end it. Eisenhower delivered on his promise to end the fighting in Korea.
This election is going to be about the war in Iraq for me. Democrats want to end it. Conservatives, at least the Neo Conservatives want to expand it to Iran, and probably Saudi Arabia to gain control of energy supplies. The position of the American Enterprise Institute, and the Project for the New American Century is WORLD DOMINATION.
I should not have to remind you that back room deals produced every president the US had from Washington to Eisenhower. The people who decided the candidates were delegates to national conventions, selected by state conventions from a slate selected by precinct committeemen.
Larry M has the right analysis. The Democratic Candidate will be selected by representatives of the people, if the People of the remaining primary states fail to produce a majority candidate before the National Convention. The system is not only working, it is working as it was intended to work.
No, they aren't. They are appointed.
Should we get rid of the electoral college?
No, it is the only thing standing between us, and mob rule. One man one vote democracy is madness. There MUST be protection for the smaller states, from the larger ones. One man one vote would not allow this, and the 4-5 largest states would determine the election every time.
At this moment more people have voted for either of them than have voted for ALL the Republicans combined
I wonder if Karl would be willing to tell us where he came by this information, or will he simply ignore valid questions like David does?
The position of the American Enterprise Institute, and the Project for the New American Century is WORLD DOMINATION
I KNOW he can't prove that one, it's absurd.
The system is not only working, it is working as it was intended to work.
The only rational thing you said.
If a majority of Democrats feel the current system is unfair and disenfranchises the members of the party, they are free to break away, start a new party, and nominate their own candidate (See "Dixiecrat" in Wikipedia).
There are advantages and disadvantages to the superdelegate system. In a close contest, it allows party professionals to choose the candidate most likely to win, and that is an advantage. On the other hand, in a close race payoffs and political deals may decide who gets the superdelegates' votes, just like in the "smoke filled rooms" of the past.
IMHO, they need to change the "name" of this election. It is not a primary "election", as such. Each state has its own rules. The "election" does not narrow a field of delegates by straight vote.
Those of us in caucus states understand the we select delegates who will make the final decision ... a variation on how we, the people, write laws -- our Congresspeople, who we have elected, do this on our behalf (though we may question our sanity at election time, on occasion).
Perhaps either: 1) we should have a true, national primary election with runoff, or 2) we should entitle this "pre-convention caucuses".
Here's a link
"superdelegates have not been elected by state primaries or caucuses. They are appointed; that's about the only real difference."
Well, they WERE elected and that election earns them a seat at the National Convention.
"Any deligate for a candidate that has dropped out is free to vote as he pleases ..."
Right but Edwards and Romney did NOT drop out . . . they 'suspended' their campaigns and still control thier delegates.
Look. It's a simple issue. The GOP winner take all strategy also has issues and makes for a seemingly united front but there . . . if you win 3 states with 51% and lose 2 states to an opponent with 99%, the party gives the advantage to the lesser candidate and the popular vote is screwed up. Here, at least, it's a true majority. This is neither new NOR nefarious.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
There are a number of comments which allude to voter indignation about the role of the superdelegates. Prior to reading this article and the comment thread I believed it would be better to simply vote for all the delegates, divide them in a proportional way, and let that be the true voice of the people. I have also held the opinion that the electoral college should be disbanded and let popular vote be the decider.
The arguments in favor of superdelegates make sense to me, but I continue to think this arrangement favors those inside government. As some have pointed out, this can be a good thing... experience does matter, but I guess maybe I don't have too much confidence in these experienced folks right now. I am not at all convinced that they are capable of seeing beyond their own self interest.
Perhaps this current system is the best and fairest but it is far too complicated for the average voter to understand. Your article helps clarify.
Because one man one vote is mob rule.
The Electoral College is the only thing standing between us, and mob rule. One man one vote democracy is madness. There MUST be protection for the smaller states, from the larger ones. One man one vote would not allow this protection, and the 4-5 largest states would determine the election every time.
I've enjoyed your contribution to this thread..
Could you explain what you envision when you make this comment:
"The Electoral College is the only thing standing between us, and mob rule. "
I also feel that the present primary system is broken, and needs to be replaced with a set of regional primaries, moving slowing across the country, over several months.
And don't even let me get started on the Electoral College, which has outlived it usefulness over the last hundred years or so. It might have been needed two hundred years ago, but those days are long past!
The primary race, which takes months and costs millions, does nothing more than select two nominees that will duke it out for the presidency come the fall, along with any independents rich enough and masochistic enough to run agains the entrenched two party system. It takes more money per voter to get through the primaries, which decide just about nothing in the end, than an entire Canadian election costs per voter.
The rules that govern the primaries, from when they are held to how the delegates are determined to who can vote change from party to party and from state to state and I doubt there are five people in the entire republic who know what all the rules for both parties in all the states are.
Even the methods used to cast ballots, as highlighted way back in 2000 with the whole "hanging chad" business, is wierd all by itself. Why do Americans feel the need for elaborate machines to cast votes, when marking a simple "X" next to the candidate or resolution of your choice will suffice?
Americans have often commented, when they spare a moment to glance at the Canadian political scene, that they don't understand why we don't get to cast a vote for our own prime minister (the leader of each party is chosen by their party members, the leader who's party holds the most seat in parliament -- comparable to Congressional seats -- becomes the prime minister, and we vote for candidates in our local riding to determine who wins the seat). Yet, Americans may cast a vote in favour of their preferred presidential candidate, but they do not elect their president either. Your electoral college elects the president. While this may usually be a mere formality, the 2000 election when the majority of voters chose Gore but the electoral college chose Bush shows that it is anything but.
You vote for someone and they get elected. Why does it have to be so complicated?
Of course, they would probably still need a few more states to actually push it over the Electoral College edge, you know, the other big ones on the other coast.
There must be protections for the smaller states, and that is precisely why you will often hear people complain the "little states have more representation than they deserve."
Every state is allocated 2 electors representing each federal Senator. Each state is also allocated for each voting district in the state, representing a member of the House. Nebraska for example has 3 districts for a total of 5; California I believe is 53 with a total of 55 still, but it could have changed recently due to a population reconciliation.
I agree it isn't perfect-- but it has worked for over 200 years. I see no reason to alter the very foundations of our nation, without very good reasons. This type of action would require a Constitutional Convention to be called; I really don't like that idea.
Do you ???
"DEMOCRATIC RACE MAY BOIL DOWN TO 796 VOTES"
The article contained the following statements and quotes that might be of interest in this thread. (The capitalized words indicate the source of the quote - either a statement by the TIMES or the person quoted in the article.)
TIMES: ..."some party leaders are becoming alarmed that the process for deciding an eventual winner is in disarray, and that the decision may come down not to ordinary voters but to the group of 796 insiders known as superdelegates."
SEN. BILL NELSON (D-FLA)(Referring also to the Fla. Mich. problem):..."We're heading for a trainwreck if we don't get this resolved. It is a flawed system that has to be changed."
TIMES:..."Donna Brazil, who ran Al Gore's 2000 campaign and is herself a superdelegate threatened to quit her leadership post in the party if the nomination were to be decided by insiders."
BRAZIL: ..."(I am) deeply worried about our ability to ensure that this is a very smooth process."
HOWARD DEAN: ..."I think we'll have a nominee in the middle of March or April. But if we don't, then we're going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement. Because I don't think we can afford to have a brokered convention."
TIMES: ..."Both campaigns are now focussing intensely on those 796 insiders..."
TIMES: ..."It (the wooing of superdelegates) is a behind-the-scenes campaign that is far different than the lofty discussions of healthcare and global warming that punctuate the public debate, focussing instead on the specific political needs of each undecided super delegate."
TIMES: ..."Clinton has tapped long time advisor Harold Ickes, who is quickly compiling dossiers on all uncommitted superdelegates..."
TIMES: ..."The superdelegate process seems to benefit Clinton, with her family's long standing political connections. She leads among declared superdelegates 270-170..." (Bill Clinton is one such superdelegate)
TIMES: ..."Tennessee state party chairman Gray Sasser is fretting over the idea that insiders will 'get in the back of some smoke-filled room and decide it.' "
TIMES: ..."DNC officials defended the practice, arguing that many of the superdelegates are grass-roots activists."
Meanwhile, the process continues with the Washington state and Nebraska Democratic caucuses and the Louisiana Democratic primary all scheduled for today.
Yes, it's going to be an interesting year.
Don't know where you came up with Eisenhower defeating Truman. Eisenhower defeated Stevenson. Truman wasn't in the race.
The question of mob rule and the electoral college is mostly symbolic to certain conservatives who dream of a control from the past that never existed. There have only been about three elections in our history when the person with the popular vote did not win. Therefore, removal of the electoral college would have very tiny effect of elected leaders.
And since the college affects only the presidential race, it is more of an anachronism than an effective tool for selection of office holders. This was initiated in a time when it was not possible for the people to know the presidential candidates and evaluate them personally. Instead, voters voted for electors whom they knew and trusted to do the electing for them. Today, this need is gone totally. Between TV, the internet, radio and newspapers, the average person has a better opportunity to know about the candidates than did the electors two hundred years ago.
The argument is made that the college balances the power of the less populated states and those of the more populated. Actually, the senate, with two votes from each state accomplishes this. Besides, the people are supposed to be the government of this nation, not acres or sagebrush!
True mob rule would be implemented if everything were referred to the electorate for final approval. However, this has not been suggested by anyone and would be unworkable. Elimination of the electoral college would simply allow the citizen voter to actually have a say in the electoral process and perhaps get more people to become actively involved, knowing that their vote did, indeed, count!
Please understand that jJack, while very intelligent and analytical, has a unique and personal set of definitions for everything from democracy to mob rule and hard categorizes each concept, often in defiance of standard meanings.
Any potential third-party ticket -- which would effectively give Americans an actual choice when they go to polls in November -- is faced with an immediate uphill climb right from the start; even getting on the ballot in all 50 states is a monumental struggle. The Democrat and Republican leadership colluded long ago to insure two-party domination of the electoral process.
The media plays a huge role in not only stifling third-party candidacy prospects, but in the selection of who the nominees of of the duopoly parties will be. They've literally become Kingmakers. The corporations that own and operate the major national media networks in this country have a vested interest in the continuation of the status quo. Any party, and especially any candidate, who poses a threat to the status quo, is marginalized in the media. A major segment of the American electorate makes their decisions based on which cajdidates the media portrays to them to be the most "electable," or "presidential." If the media owners and pundits don't like the prospects of a particular candidates' program, they simply ignore them, marginalize them, and present them as not sufficiently "mainstream" enough to be the nominee.
Good case in point is Ron Paul. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News mostly just act like he doesn't exist, like he's not even in the race. They never show his positions in their "candidate comparisons," and they've excluded him as an option in their "scientific polls" the whole time. They consistently exclude him when referring to the candidates, for example, even now, when commenting on the Republican candidates, they'll say "both Republican candidates in the race," referring to McCain and Huckabee, as if Dr. Paul doesn't even exist.
Just consider; six months ago John McCain's candidacy was DOA. He was broke, nobody would send him any money, 4 out of 5 self-professed "conservatives" hated his guts. All of a sudden, the media networks decide to revive his campaign, and simply by presenting him as "the most electable," and devoting significant airtime and favorable coverage to him, they've managed to boost him to the level of "inevitable" nominee. The mainstream media selected the nominees to be in the general election; the American electorate is mostly just sheepple who will vote for whoever they're told to vote for.
McCain is still hated by 80% of conservatives. Still hardly anyone will send him money. His campaign is in debt. His name is attached to some of the most hated legislation this country has had in decades. He has virtually zero grassroots support.
Yet he is the Republican nominee.
Ain't "democracy" great?
An excellent analysis! While someone commented accurately that the selection of the candidates for a party was the party's business and therefore doesn't have to answer to the people, the brokered conventions definitely remove the voter in the party from having a critical say in the selection.
The two front runners could be rejected after the first ballot and a compromise candidate selected such as Kucinich or Edwards. This does not usually happen as one of the front runners usually gets enough of the other candidates votes to put him over the top. Also, this usually happens after several ballots, all inconclusive.
I don't have a good answer to the problem as long as we have political parties and I believe that will continue indefinitely. One was might be for the government to establish and control parties but I'd not want that. It's still, in my mind, the best system in the world so if we can make incremental improvements from sithin the parties that is about the best to hope for at this time.
Good article David. Thanks!
\\\\The point here is that the system has become geared to put the decision in the hands of a few insiders.
That's just plain WRONG.////
I agree with you that it is basically wrong for the non-elected super delegates to have what is possibly the final say in the selection but I can't get as worked up about it as you because it is the party's decision and the party is a private entity.
\\\\The purpose of this article is to make the point for discussion that the system should be devised in such a way as to give the decision to the voters, not to take the decision away from them.
It's NEVER been taken away. We are using virtually the exact same system that was used 200 years ago.////
Because it has been in use for 200 years does not necessarily make it right or the best way! Like I said, since the parties are private organizations they have a lot of latittude on how they choose their candidates but to make it more subject to the will of the people would make it more democratic in nature, if that is the desire of the party.
But let me take a little different take on the proccess. I think we all agree that the intent of our Republic is that the government we "choose" to represent us relfect the will of the people. Despite how far things can get out of control, whenever a portion of that government defies that will enough, they are pushed out of the circle of power. So, as far as I'm concerned the dang thing could be decided by polls. But people need the illusion of order and tradition.
You are absolutly correct David. In reality the system is a sham, easily compromised in a thousand different ways. All we the people have to hold on to is the knowledge that the one thing the politicians cannot fix is the emotional support of the people. It is for this reason they are forced to pander to our will. If they don't, all the political shananagans in the world can't stop their ultimate demise. Look at the neoconservatives for a case in point. Despite actually pulling off what amounted to a coup d' etat to gain control of the presidency... twice, they took the country too far off the track of the people's will. And the backlash started with the 2006 election and will be even bigger in 2008. We just have to have faith the combined will of the people will finally come through. And that's why it is so important to speak out and let people know how you feel and where you want to see this country go.
jJack - the 4 -5 largest states have nearly the majority of the electorial college. They are selected by population. What we out here in the west get is zip when it comes to choosing a President. Either by popular vote or Electoral College.
If Hillary gets the nomination in a very close race, Obama could be yelling RACIST.
If Obama gets the nomination in a very close race, Hillary could be yelling DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN.
Might get interesting don't ya think.
that is going to destroy the party in a very important election and can
agree on doing something about it, AND feel they can take the chance
of overriding some people's wishes, then that is their right. In that
case I mentioned above that would be the case. It is like a check and
balances, remember this is a republic, not a straight democracy.
Please understand, you're full of shit.
If you think you are able to refute one thing I've said, please give it your best shot.
\\\\Please understand, you're full of shit. ////
You're just figuring that out? Tell me something I don't know! If that's the most damning thing you've got to say about me today I'll just accept it and consider myself lucky. I was really expecting worse, that's not worth a quibble!
Just calls 'em like I sees 'em! Thanks jJack!
So if you want the real power of choice join a party, get involved and get elected to the state central committee.
How did you get this far in the thread, and still believe delegates are appointed? What do you think the candidates are "winning" in each state of the primaries?
SUPERdelegates on the other hand, yes they are appointed, by different means, and different people in different states.
Would you support a system which would allow the public to choose their delegates
I don't care who chooses the delegates, I care ONLY that once chosen, they are required to carry out the mandate of voting for the candidate the people of the state have already selected by the primary vote.
Some states, this is not required, though it's never really been a problem except once or twice.
and LOL Thomas...
kudos!
This is to let you know that your content has reached at least 20 comments and therefore has been removed from
http://wantitall.gather.com/
Please be sure and post all of your photos, posts and videos to the group and don't forget to stop by and comment on group content!