There has been a lot of press lately about the so called "Superdelegates" and I thought that it was a very worthy topic to blog about.
Superdelegates are democratic officals, both in elected office and appointed that have the right to vote at the democratic convention. There are currently 796 of these individuals. The superdelegates are made up from the democratic members of congress, democratic governors, party leaders and former heads of the Democratic National Committee, former democratic presidents (Gee, I wonder who Bill is going to vote for?), former democratic leaders from the house and senate. There are some other democrats appointed to these positions that hold posts in other democratic organizations like Young Democrats of America.
So what this could mean at the nominating convention is that if the vote lead Clinton or Obama have over the other is less than this number then it is possible that the candidate with the fewer delegates based on the popular vote in the primaries and caucuses could become the democratic candidate for president.
Nice huh!
The current system was established in 1984 to prevent a candidate or populist ideal from swaying the party too far one way or the other. If this looked likely to happen the superdelegates were there to prevent this from happening.
What happened to: "Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people..."? I don't see anything in there that says "by a few people." I think that this is wrong to be able to undermine a candidate that has achieved a victory through the primaries and caucuses.
And to give the republicans equal time - that have "unpledged delegates" that currently stand at around 123. Much less of an impact on their convention, but it is there nonetheless.
I believe that much of what is wrong in this country today has been fostered by the two party system that is currently in place. The election laws need to be modified to allow a viable third party to join the fray or at least make it easier for a non-aligned candidate to run for president. The way it is right now no one, short of a very wealthy person, can afford to try to run for office against the two entrenched parties. I think that this is wrong and should be changed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Thanks for explaining all of that. Our system sometimes is as clear as mud, which I think is part of the problem. No one really understands what is going on, and thus, folks get frustrated and many don't even bother to vote. Although, based on this, voting sometimes hardly seems to matter.
I'm all for a third party or a way for other viable candidates (even those without money) to run.
Hello? Abe Lincoln? Did HE have money? I think not. I know, I know, I keep bringing him up and he surely had his faults, to, but, after watching "North and South" (again), it made me realize what a chore he had to run this country during the Civil War AND be so forgiving of the South afterwards.
What a mess this country would have been in in 1865 if the likes of the yahoos we've got running for President today were in office.
Scary, ain't it?
Hello? Abe Lincoln? Did HE have money? I think not. I know, I know, I keep bringing him up and he surely had his faults, to, but, after watching "North and South" (again), it made me realize what a chore he had to run this country during the Civil War AND be so forgiving of the South afterwards.
"...he surely had his faults, TOO..."
I hate that you can't edit comments after posting!
......got a good solution for that.....public financing of elections......read "a culture of corruption" by bill moyers.....in it he refers us to.....publicampaign.org.
Yes, I have heard about Bill Moyer's concept as well as other versions based on the same type of premise. But, and it is a big one, both of the parties that are in power now will have to allow that type of reform on a national basis. McCain-Feingold was a start down that path, but in order to get it passed it had to be so watered down that very little actually changed.
And, I do live in a state that already has a public campaign finance law, but the candidates that accept these types of restrictions are at a severe disadvantage. The law doesn't limit what the opponent can do if they decide not to seek public financing.
Until there is a nationwide law that puts every candidate on equal footing, with regard to campaign financing, there will not be parity and the ability to compete with either party will continue to be severely limited.
Post a Comment