jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (4 posts)

Voters Do Not Understand The Political Party Delegate System

  1. GA Anderson profile image84
    GA Andersonposted 20 months ago

    I think folks complaining about the Democrat's Super Delegates, (ie. Sanders supporters), and both party's delegate distribution systems, misunderstand what the party primary and delegate system is. I do not think it is a popular vote selection of the party's candidate for office.

    I am giving everyone a free shot on this topic because I am tossing out some non-researched thoughts based on past readings.

    So maybe I should do a little research before I activate my keyboard... Hmm...

    The basic idea is that a party puts fourth a candidate for an office. If there are multiple candidates, then the party has to pick one to run under its banner. To do this the party asks its members who to offer - via a primary election of its multiple candidates. (open primaries, ie anyone can vote, are a puzzlement to me)

    But, this is not a popular vote mandate - a primary is just a party asking its members who they want to be their candidate.

    And... like any contest - there are rules. Each party gets to make their own rules. That is fair isn't it? If it is your game, and your ball, then you get to make the rules.

    ...still with me?

    Of course neither party wants to pass complete control of the candidate selection to the popular vote. Just imagine if they did that... Someone like an brash businessman, or a declared non-capitalist might steal the podium.

    So they make rules that give them strings to pull. For both parties some of these strings are in the form of convention rules and proportional delegate distribution plans. And a spattering of committed vs. non-committed rules pertaining to delegate choice options. This means in some cases state party delegates must vote for the candidate with the most popular votes, and in others they are expected to do that - but aren't required to. The Democrat party also tossed in a blatant control option in the form of Super delegates - who can vote for any candidate they want - regardless of party voter preference.

    That sounds fair enough to me. If you don't like your party's rules - change them, or change parties.

    What say you?

    ps. I also think pure popular vote elections are no different than mob rule. So I am all for our Electoral College and party delegate processes.


    1. profile image0
      Cissy1946posted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Before floating away on a cloud of happy I would suggest looking into the Democratic caucuses. It's been a number of years since I've had any contact with them but they certainly opened my eyes to the shenanigans going on to control who was selected as a delegate and, in turn, who would be supported at convention. Fair doesn't even enter into it.

  2. brimancandy profile image81
    brimancandyposted 20 months ago

    Delegates is the same reason that we ended up with president Bush, instead of President Gore. We all knew then that Gore had kicked Bushes but on the popular vote, and it was turned over to Bush by suing his way into the white house based on delegates. Which we will never know was every proven to be true, or where the delegates came from.

    Romney tried to pull the same rabbit out of his hat against Obama, but they discovered that even if he had over turned the states in his favor, he still would have lost based on the popular vote, and lack of delegates.

    My worry is that if Trump doesn't get elected to be president, the republican party may try to pull that same rabbit out of the hat, to get their guy in the white house, even though none of them really want him there. I know that I certainly do not. The thought of Trump in the white house is probably the worst feeling of potential Doom I have ever felt.

    I'm not fond of Hillary either, but the sense of doom is not there. And If Bernie sneaks in there that would be fine with me. If Buggs Bunny went up against Trump, I'm voting for the bunny.

    1. GA Anderson profile image84
      GA Andersonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Hello Brimancandy,
      I think if you look a little deeper into the 2000 Bush/Gore/Florida issue you will find that the suit was about the court's insistence that Florida's own election laws be followed - instead of being about recounting methods and changing definitions of a punched ballot, (you remember the media's infamous "hanging chad" controversy don'tcha). It was not about Republican shenanigans with the courts and "suing his way into the White House."

      Of course that is a different topic for a different thread, but my opinion is that the Democrats are still smouldering over the myth that the courts took the election away from Gore. And the other stuff about Romney and Trump deserve their own thread too.

      So how about them Democrat Super Delegates, ain't that a kicker for a popular vote advocate?