I am talking about newscasters here in Massachusetts. I am also talking about the networks. They greater the number of unelected deegates the less the value of the elected legegates that 10 months of fuss was about. Regular voters can see that with the propontional division of delegates that the bigwigs hold a big thrump card up their sleeve. It is appropiately called missing the 800 pound gorila in the room. It has done a lot of damage to the democrat party.
Yes some of the coverage is risible.Originally Posted by westair
Do you not think the Democratic Party has set up a system that is open to criticism? To be honest I am not quite sure that this whole delegate system generally is not a flawed concept.
Obviously the Democrats modified their system so as to give a balance between the wishes of supporters and party insiders. Democracy is often just the oppression of minority and often the majority vote on superficial impressions rather than any actual deep analysis. So I can see, following that line of thought, the reason for delegates deciding, but if that is the case why then bother with this election system at all?
Assuming Democrats are trying to balance two desirable attributes that are not exactly compatible they are therefore potentially open to criticism.
The Super delegates really only come into play where you have a virtual deadlock and after a lot of horse dealing eventually the party has a nominee. But if the super delegates did not exist then the candidate with the greatest number of pledged delegates would win even if it was close.
Of course this time round we have the further complication of Michigan and Florida.
It has all the potential to be very messy.
Yes,well any system of democracy is by its nature flawed - trying to give balance to all parties involved will yield a system that can potentially go wrong and give an imbalance from time to time.
The Democratic delegate system was set up so as to try and bring a balance between the average voter and party officials in the selection of candidates for election. [Remember in Ireland it is ONLY the party insiders who decide on candidates.] As this is the first time since the introduction of super delegates after the 1980 election that no clear candidate is emerging prior to the convention there is a huge amount of discussion about the potential "power" of the super delegates - so we will just have to wait and see how it plays out.
My guess is that the candidate with most delegates and is ahead in the popular vote will get the support of a majority of super delegates. To do otherwise is to risk dissent -like Dems not voting or voting Rep- in the general election.
The propottional system that the Dems adopted was considered to be the better alternative as it gives each candidate a shot at getting delegates - right now the Rep system of "winner takes all " has given them a candidate who is unpopular with much of the party base.
One way or another it is a good system that gives the general public a right in the selection of party candidates.
The dems should be able to back the nominee whichever one it is as there is little difference. But how Romney can come out and ask his supporters to support McCain seems to me to be absurd. It is almost as bad as Pat Robertson asking his Christians to support the advocate of abortions. Robertson destroyed himself and if I was a Mitt supporter I would be reconsidering that Flip Flopper was not an excellent name
Madam in Dolier Street will be happy that a 'pro choice' woman is leading the race to be the new demagogue . . .
Hilary and her D 4 supporters are a joke . . . She's on a loser anway
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote