The more I hear about this upcoming election the more confused I get.
One of the so called "Delegates" even loudly proclaimed it was they who choose the next winner, not the voters.
What if all Primaries were held on the exact same day?
What if we did away with the Electoral College?
What if we went straight to Popular Vote and eliminated the delegates entirely?
Perhaps it was intentional but our current voting process seems to have become so complicated that very few even understand how it works, myself included.
Wouldn't it be great if our votes actually meant something again?
There is a video interview on Infowars with a Democratic Super Delegate. Bob says that D-governors are automatic Super D's, and says there are other ways to become one.
* http://www.infowars.com/hillary-superde … snt-count/
“The way we work, anyone who gets 15% or more in an election gets delegates, so this election will go all the way to California [the nomination] and Sanders will end up with well over 1,000 but Hillary will get the nomination,” Mulholland added.
Bernie won CA by a landslide, but lost to Hillary. He sued California, but a judge ruled against the Sanders' voters. Its a rigged system and they aren't going to let Bernie get any traction.
The RNC tried the same tricks on Trump, but when he exposed them they stopped that... He won by a landslide. I expect they have other tricks they will try to pull.
The establishment is crooked and they don't want an outsider coming in to put an end to the corruption.
Its time to fix the system and fire the people who rig it (not elect them again).
colorfulone - It is becoming more and more apparent that we-the-people no longer have much to say about who becomes our President. The elite Politicians now own this entire election process and make up the rules as they go along. I would love to know how this can be stopped if that is even possible.
Greetings, OP, I don't like this 'superdelegate' as I think that it is intrinsically undemocratic.
I have asked this question about the Electoral College and had it explained to me thusly:
I wrestle over the necessity of the Electoral College as a Constitution concession to the smaller states. With the Electoral college, candidates are encouraged to appeal to all regions of the country rather than its most populous. The incidents of an Electoral College tally differing from the outcome of the popular vote is infrequent. I won't fuss about it too much.
Hello Credence2, it has been a long time and I hope all is well with you and yours.
I do understand how the Electoral College was established to make it more fair for less populated areas. But wouldn't just a straight popular vote do the same thing?
I don't know OP, I am not sure about that. This is why I waffle on the issue a bit. I have heard concerns from both sides.
Hey guy, I am a big supporter of the electoral collage, and I think the party primary system serves exactly the function it was designed for.
Let me offer a different perspective and a few reasons to consider.
Regarding the Electoral Collage; it ensures that all states have some input or impact upon the selection of our leaders. If decisions were made strictly by popular vote, then 4 or 5 of the most populous states, like; Florida, California, Texas, and I forget the other two, could form a block that would guarantee their selections. Mob rule. How would you feel if your state didn't matter because California had enough votes to overrule you? Rule by popular vote is mob rule. Think about it... Compare it to the rational behind every state having an equal number of Senators. To ensure every state has an opportunity for input.
And about the primaries... I think too many people view them as the voice of the people. Primaries are party functions to help determine a party's candidate. I think all party primaries should be closed. Why should a Democrat or Independent have a say in a Republican party decision?
If you look from the perspective of primaries and delegates, and superdelegates, as being tools for a party to choose its candidate, then it doesn't seem so bad that political machinations influence the selection. That was the intended purpose.
Staging the primaries, instead of all in one day, also serves a purpose. More than just a weeding out process, it also serves to allow opinions to form, (or change), and support to coalesce, or evaporate. Can you imagine the the avalanche of issues, events, and considerations to be decided upon in one day? The weakest that would not have survived even the first state's primary is now demanding equal standing as the strongest candidate on a single election day. I bet you could think of an example or two of some vote-changing issue or revelation that occurred during the primary voting process. What if a single voting day robbed you of the opportunity to consider such an event?
GA - All excellent points sir, I may have to re-think this one.
All very good points I must admit. The problem lies in that the two parties dominate the system with choosing on party rather than public interests. Combine that with special interests such as large scale buying of candidates and you get what we currently have to elect. Two disdainful characters that have questionable intents and abilities. Maybe it is an indictment of our national demeanor or just a reflection of our character as a society.
I agree with you, and along those lines... I remember a TED talk about this topic called "Lesterland".
The point of the talk was an illustration that "the people" don't choose the candidates to run for national offices; it is the influencers(sp) and political machinery that choose our choices before they become our choices. Great talk if you have the time.
Since first seeing this talk I was in hearty agreement, but this Trump upset seems to also upset the premise of "Lesterland".
It is way beyond time we overhauled our system. It is insane to me that it is possible to win the popular vote and lose the election. It is bizarre, dangerous and haphazard that the primary process is so random. We need one day and one day only to go the the polls and vote in the primaries. Watching these caucuses at work is a royal slap in the face to me as a citizen of a country that is supposed to set an example to the rest of the world. I don't know who super delegates are, but there reign of terror has to end. Anyway you look t the process it is flawed, just as flawed as the politicians who made up these ridiculous rules.
Patti I am too ignorant of the current process to know if this has evolved over time or how we got into this mess.
At any rate, it is a far from fair process. Way to much opportunity for bribes and corruption with the delegates.
I have no idea what it would take to simplify the process and make it fair again, but it sure needs to be done.
I agree Old Poolman. Not only do primaries need to be held on the same day in every state, but the method of awarding delegates needs to be consistent as well. Some states are winner take all but others have a proportional allotment system. That's ridiculous.
States that hold a caucus instead of a primary need to switch to a primary because caucuses are inefficient and exclusionary in so many ways. Caucuses have much lower voter turnout than primaries too.
calculus-geometry - Thanks for the comment. These differing sets of rules are partly what make it so confusing.
If there is anything that should have a clearly defined rule book it should be our election process. That way the rules would at least affect each candidate the same way.
It is WE who elect people who are unworthy ! Enough said .
Nope it's not time to revise. The founders were level headed hard working farmers and people who loved this country and were well aware of the pit falls of England.
What is most urgently needed is some enforcement of the election laws. The current governor of California wasn't eligible to run for attorney general, which was his job before he became governor. The reason was a simple. There is a law that says the attorney general must have practiced law no less than 5 years before being elected. Mr. Brown was mayor of Oakland,California for 8 years before running for attorney general.
The voter information booklet sent to every voter in California has a disclaimer in the front saying the information in the booklet is not necessarily true, but the opinion of the people who wrote it.
Then there is the voter fraud. If one more person tells me voter ID is a hardship on underprivileged I will spit. You can't get welfare, food stamps etc. without Identification. Who placed the hardship on those poor people first.
California ID doesn't even have to be acknowledged by TSA for travel it's so sketchy.
The electoral college was used to give smaller states equal representation. If it's true that many dead people vote then where does the popular vote get you. More dead people voting? What about the precincts where more people voted than were in the whole county let alone registered to vote. The only voting revision we need is fewer crooks running the country.
by Faith Reaper9 months ago
I may be a bit naive on this topic, but I believe that my vote should count. I understand the history and all, but I still think one's vote should count, and the candidate who receives the most votes should...
by Dan Harmon10 months ago
It seems that at least two electors from Texas have decided to cast their electoral college vote not for the man they promised to, but someone else.Christopher Suprun is one of those faithless electors:"That was...
by ptosis4 years ago
"A constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (or a Convention under Article V of the Constitution) and ratification in three-fourths of all fifty states, would be...
by Mike Russo10 months ago
People are protesting President Elect Trump? Because Hillary won the popular vote by .3% Trump = 47.4%, Hillary = 47.7%, but she lost the electoral college. That means more people voted for Hillary's platform than for...
by Credence24 years ago
excerpt from a recent article"After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control...
by andrew savage4 years ago
Which is the better of the two: a president who wins the election by popular vote or a president who wins by the electorial vote? What are the safeties and dangers of the two?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.