Should this happen

[rushmc 23]

I will fully expect the left to be screaming of a stolen election and the ignoring of the will of the people.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/16/top-clinton-adviser-says-superdelegates-will-decide-election-obamas-victories-irrelevant/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I expect they will be in exactly that position after the primaries are completed. The Clinton camp will then try to convince Obama that he has lost and that he should concede "for the good of the party." I fully expect Obama to stay in and try to convince the superdelegates to switch their votes "for the good of the party." If they do not, well, I think McCain will make a good president; probably not a great one, but at least an honourable one.

[rushmc 23]

Good points. Interesting but I think this has the potential of being one of the ugliest political shows seen in politics in a long time.

I have done a lot of reading. I looks to be the fight as to wether the Clintons stay atop of the Dem party or thier being at the top is over.

Either way, you made good points.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

NPR this morning had a story with a similar sentiment (perhaps a different tone ...),
Loyalty vs. Voters: A Superdelegate's Dilemma.

Excerpt:

"He [Rep. Emanuel Cleaver] represents Missouri's 5th Congressional District, which includes Kansas City, and endorsed Clinton, his longtime friend, in August.

"'This is an ethical entanglement,'" Cleaver tells [NPR's] Melissa Block.

"'Do you maintain your loyalty and your word? Or, do you say, "My district went one direction and I am therefore ethically obligated to follow the district,"' he says."

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 23]

Quote

NPR this morning had a story with a similar sentiment (perhaps a different tone ...),
Loyalty vs. Voters: A Superdelegate's Dilemma.

Excerpt:

"He [Rep. Emanuel Cleaver] represents Missouri's 5th Congressional District, which includes Kansas City, and endorsed Clinton, his longtime friend, in August.

"'This is an ethical entanglement,'" Cleaver tells [NPR's] Melissa Block.

"'Do you maintain your loyalty and your word? Or, do you say, "My district went one direction and I am therefore ethically obligated to follow the district,"' he says."

VR/Marg

I was (up until this year) completely unaware of "super delegates" and thier independence until this year. As I look at it it seems that this type of process is ripe for scandal.

Query, are the Dems the only ones with SD's and, should this continue?

Not stirring the pot here, I really am truly intrigued by this

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TrophyHusband 0]

the democratic party has already disenfranchised the voters of florida and michigan, why not disenfranchise all democratic voters? that couldn't possibly have repercussions in the general election.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Query, are the Dems the only ones with SD's and, should this continue?

Yep!. In virtually the same proportion as the dems.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Query, are the Dems the only ones with SD's and, should this continue?

Yep!. In virtually the same proportion as the dems.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html

I am sorry, your reply is confusing to me. Are the Dems the only party with super delegates?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andrewwhyte 1]

No the GOP has unpledged RNC delegates in roughly the same proportion as the democratic superdelegates (~19% of the total # of delegates).
The link explains it.
I am not sure why the press uses the term 'superdelegates' exclusively for the dems. It may be because the larger raw number makes it seem more of a boondogle for party insiders. Sending the Senator as an unelected delegate is one thing, sending the campaign manager for the unsuccessful candidate in the 23rd district is another. The GOPs smaller number of total delegates allow less of this.

[rushmc 23]

Thanks
Sorry I am so lazy

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jdthomas 0]

Another reason to get rid of the good ol boy systems and go by popular votes.. let the real people decide and not some "super friends" in thier own imaginary justic leage.

www.greenboxphotography.com

[dannydan 5]

Quote

Another reason to get rid of the good ol boy systems and go by popular votes.. let the real people decide and not some "super friends" in thier own imaginary justic leage.

I agree! However, the "electorial collage" was created for some reason cant remember why tho.

I have alot of re~learning yet to do

[PhreeZone 20]

The Electoral College was created to give people in all the smaller states just of large of a voice as the people in the larger states. For example there is nothing stopping someone from running and saying "I'll eliminate all taxes for people living in California, New York, Florida, Ohio and New Jeresy but increase taxes everywhere else to pay for it". On a popular vote basis there is a really good chance that they will sweep the vote with 80-90% in those states and that may put them in the White House since they recieved more then half the cast votes but in doing so the larger population in those states were able to lessen the voice or even mute places like Montana, New Mexico, etc that their entire state population is less then a single city in a larger state.

It levels the playing field and allows all states to have an equal voice, not the voters but the states. Voters in the smaller states tend to actually have a larger voice per electoral college vote then voters in the larger states do.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

The Electoral College was created to give people in all the smaller states just of large of a voice as the people in the larger states. .

No, it was not. Read Federalist No. 68 for an explanation of the EC. The purpose is CLEARLY stated there; to place an intermediate body of the elite between the ignorant masses of the people and the election of the President.

Secondly, it is a common misconception that the EC achieves the goal of giving a bigger voice to the smaller states, as Banzhaf's mathematical analysis of voting power shows.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

More on the topic

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Another reason to get rid of the good ol boy systems and go by popular votes.. let the real people decide and not some "super friends" in thier own imaginary justic leage.

Oh, absolutely...let's just let "the mob rule"....

*emphasis mine*

Quote

"The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’

***‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome."

— Robert A. Heinlein (To Sail Beyond the Sunset)

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Secondly, it is a common misconception that the EC achieves the goal of giving a bigger voice to the smaller states, as Banzhaf's mathematical analysis of voting power shows.

you keep asserting this, but everyone here can do simple division.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I am not sure why the press uses the term 'superdelegates' exclusively for the dems. It may be because the larger raw number makes it seem more of a boondogle for party insiders. Sending the Senator as an unelected delegate is one thing, sending the campaign manager for the unsuccessful candidate in the 23rd district is another. The GOPs smaller number of total delegates allow less of this.

I think the difference lies in the GOP's tendency towards winner take all state elections. Just as the EC makes a 5 pt victory look like a landslide, it has McCain well ahead of every one else while Clinton and Obama stay neck and neck. So the superdelegates are rarely in a position to matter.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Secondly, it is a common misconception that the EC achieves the goal of giving a bigger voice to the smaller states, as Banzhaf's mathematical analysis of voting power shows.

you keep asserting this, but everyone here can do simple division.

It isn't John who is asserting it; it is Banzhaf. I think you need more than simple division to debunk his article. Saying it seems simple enough just won't cut it.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I think the difference lies in the GOP's tendency towards winner take all state elections. Just as the EC makes a 5 pt victory look like a landslide, it has McCain well ahead of every one else while Clinton and Obama stay neck and neck. So the superdelegates are rarely in a position to matter.

Good point.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Secondly, it is a common misconception that the EC achieves the goal of giving a bigger voice to the smaller states, as Banzhaf's mathematical analysis of voting power shows.

you keep asserting this, but everyone here can do simple division.

Simple division is good for simple problems. Voting power turns out to be a complex problem not amenable to simple division

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It isn't John who is asserting it; it is Banzhaf. I think you need more than simple division to debunk his article. Saying it seems simple enough just won't cut it.

It's a rather long math theorem that (apparently) can't be summarized with normal, debatable points. I gave it a quick look and could not find an argument explaining the conclusion.

Meanwhile, it's pretty easy to see that Alaska and Wyoming get substantially greater representation in the electoral college than California. That Bush needed 30 smaller states to barely eek out a narrow win could support some sort of argument that bigger states have more power, but it still doesn't change the huge disparity per vote.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Meanwhile, it's pretty easy to see that Alaska and Wyoming get substantially greater representation in the electoral college than California. That Bush needed 30 smaller states to barely eek out a narrow win could support some sort of argument that bigger states have more power, but it still doesn't change the huge disparity per vote.

It doesn't change the huge disparity of collage members selected per vote; however it does change the chance a vote will turn the election. That is the point.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It doesn't change the huge disparity of collage members selected per vote; however it does change the chance a vote will turn the election. That is the point.

So how does it fail to do so, and how would abandoning the EC not make the problem worse? No one is questioning that AK has less influence than CA.

That the GOP can win dispite only getting a few of the large states suggests the small states still have power.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

It doesn't change the huge disparity of collage members selected per vote; however it does change the chance a vote will turn the election. That is the point.

So how does it fail to do so, and how would abandoning the EC not make the problem worse? No one is questioning that AK has less influence than CA.

That the GOP can win dispite only getting a few of the large states suggests the small states still have power.

Who said they had no power? Not me. Not Banzhaf. All Banzhaf shows it that a simplistic "divide one number by another" analysis is wrong and leads to a false conclusion about the relative influence of big and small states.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.