To me....this sounds like a "typical" corrupt democrat party power move.....it seems to me they are taking the will of the people and putting the power into democrat leaders hands......kind of like they WANT to do to our country.........these arrogant leaders seem like they know more what is best for our country than the people do.............no, MAYBE i'm wrong....but, that is clearly the way I see this... :no:
You mean they are not wearing masks and capes with their tights???
I don't know either, this is the first I have heard of such a thing since I started voting way back when.
I got some info from a blog...take it for what it is worth....
http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/politics?type=politicsNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL&src=blogBurst_politicsNews&bbPostId=Cz4EvxGDnBqqcCzAgqJChmBnlMB9KQ4G8QYglNCzDUwgjnYUHeP&bbParentWidgetId=B94DflL2bLsuzDPLZYiSAqaT (http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/politics?type=politicsNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL&src=blogBurst_politicsNews&bbPostId=Cz4EvxGDnBqqcCzAgqJChmBnlMB9KQ4G8QYglNCzDUwgjnYUHeP&bbParentWidgetId=B94DflL2bLsuzDPLZYiSAqaT)
After the 1968 DNC convention, changes were put in place to limit the power of DNC party officials in the delegate selection process and more responsive to votes cast during the campaign for nomination. This lasted until 1980 when party leaders felt their power had diminished too far. In response the superdelegate rule was enacted after the 1980 election. By 1984 party leaders were already in the process of usurping the will of the people, handing the nomination to Walter Mondale largely on superdelegate support, taking it away from Gary Hart. Mondale went on to lose 49 of 50 states to Ronald Reagan in the general election. Now in 2008 they could once again trump the will of the people.
Here ya go Henry.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18072/history_of_superdelegates_in_the_democratic_party.html
and yet democrats SCREAMED that the republicans was scamming the election process...
:biggrin:
Corrupt? Would attempting to change the electoral process, mid game, in a major state...such as California...be considered a corrupt move?
Quote from: PIYA on March 28, 2008, 12:37:05 PM
Corrupt? Would attempting to change the electoral process, mid game, in a major state...such as California...be considered a corrupt move?
attempting one thing .... DOING is another... ;) ;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 28, 2008, 12:39:48 PM
attempting one thing .... DOING is another... ;) ;D
Actually, no it isn't because the GOP would have been perfectly happy to do it, but at least one member of the GOP wasn't corrupt enough to go for it.
well...apparently it WAS the "intent" of our founding fathers that the President (as well as the Senate) NOT be directly elected by the people. another purely political compromise of expediency (like slavery) that our saintly founders decided to leave for future generations try to figure out. amazingly human those founding fathers don't you think?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 28, 2008, 12:27:01 PM
and yet democrats SCREAMED that the republicans was scamming the election process...
:biggrin:
Yep. Seems with this one they put themselves in the trick bag though. :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 27, 2008, 09:11:52 AM
To me....this sounds like a "typical" corrupt democrat party power move.....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 28, 2008, 12:27:01 PM
and yet democrats SCREAMED that the republicans was scamming the election process...
Quote from: me on March 29, 2008, 08:16:55 AM
Yep. Seems with this one they put themselves in the trick bag though. :biggrin:
<shakes head>
Youse guys will swallow anything you hear from idiotic sources...and then make it up from there... :rolleyes:
The proper terminology is Unpledged Delegates or PLEO's (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=unpledged+delegates&btnG=Google+Search) and
both parties have them.
Learning to research is your friend! :biggrin:
Quote from: bevis on March 28, 2008, 01:55:16 PM
well...apparently it WAS the "intent" of our founding fathers that the President (as well as the Senate) NOT be directly elected by the people. another purely political compromise of expediency (like slavery) that our saintly founders decided to leave for future generations try to figure out. amazingly human those founding fathers don't you think?
Actually quite wise. They understood the dangers of a pure democracy so well that they provided a safeguard from the rule of the mob. :wink:
Quote from: Y on March 30, 2008, 11:47:47 PM
<shakes head>
Youse guys will swallow anything you hear from idiotic sources...and then make it up from there... :rolleyes:
The proper terminology is Unpledged Delegates or PLEO's (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=unpledged+delegates&btnG=Google+Search) and both parties have them.
Learning to research is your friend! :biggrin:
Harvard University is an idiotic source? :eek:
Quote from: Y on March 30, 2008, 11:47:47 PM
<shakes head>
Youse guys will swallow anything you hear from idiotic sources...and then make it up from there... :rolleyes:
The proper terminology is Unpledged Delegates or PLEO's (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=unpledged+delegates&btnG=Google+Search) and both parties have them.
Learning to research is your friend! :biggrin:
I DID.. ;)
After the 1968 DNC convention, changes were put in place to limit the power of DNC party officials in the delegate selection process and more responsive to votes cast during the campaign for nomination. This lasted until 1980 when party leaders felt their power had diminished too far. In response the superdelegate rule was enacted after the 1980 election. By 1984 party leaders were already in the process of usurping the will of the people, handing the nomination to Walter Mondale largely on superdelegate support, taking it away from Gary Hart. Mondale went on to lose 49 of 50 states to Ronald Reagan in the general election. Now in 2008 they could once again trump the will of the people......
can you show me a similar process on the GOP, where voters are being disenfranchised..
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 31, 2008, 07:10:53 PM
can you show me a similar process on the GOP, where voters are being disenfranchised..
They just get the Supreme Court to do it for them.
Quote from: C91 on April 02, 2008, 05:01:44 PM
They just get the Supreme Court to do it for them.
You mean interpret the laws as they are written and designed?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 31, 2008, 07:10:53 PM
I DID.. ;)
can you show me a similar process on the GOP, where voters are being disenfranchised..
Do you even grasp what unpledged means? How about primary elections? Disenfranchised? Party politics? Apparently not... :rolleyes:
It's party politics, NOT general elections, Henry... :wink:
Whenever I'm confronted with such ignorance, I move closer and closer to the position of pre-qualifications for allowing people to vote... :razz:
...but I still find you an affable fellow... :biggrin:
Quotecan you show me a similar process on the GOP, where voters are being disenfranchised..
I didn't think so........... ;)
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/9373/ (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/9373/)
Here is a cartoon by Glen Beck......a look at the history of Super Delegates.... ;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 30, 2008, 02:23:44 PM
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/9373/ (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/9373/)
Here is a cartoon by Glen Beck......a look at the history of Super Delegates.... ;D
Glad you found that Henry and its something that was on CNN so no one can crack on Fox for that one.... :biggrin:
Quote from: me on April 30, 2008, 02:33:15 PM
Glad you found that Henry and its something that was on CNN so no one can crack on Fox for that one.... :biggrin:
Glen Beck did it.......and he is a libertarian...and it is pretty funny and has some truths to it... :yes: ;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 30, 2008, 02:53:36 PM
Glen Beck did it.......and he is a libertarian...and it is pretty funny and has some truths to it... :yes: ;D
:yes:
Glenn Beck dried-out drunk, ex-drug addict, Mormon, conservative! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck)
Libertarian doesn't seem to be mentioned.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 31, 2008, 07:10:53 PM
I DID.. ;)
can you show me a similar process on the GOP, where voters are being disenfranchised..
Do you even grasp what unpledged means? How about primary elections? Disenfranchised? Party politics? Apparently not... :rolleyes:
It's party politics, NOT general elections, Henry... :wink:
Whenever I'm confronted with such ignorance, I move closer and closer to the position of pre-qualifications for allowing people to vote... :razz:
...but I still find you an affable fellow... :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 17, 2008, 12:53:49 PM
I didn't think so........... ;)
As I pointed out, just like from where you regurgitated that crap, you don't understand the system. The parties and their shills don't want you to.
Both parties are private entities, corporations IIRC. Think of both parties as private clubs with millions of members. The National Committees own and run the parties, make the rules, and though they may allow the members (i.e.: voters, as you and the shills want to think) some voice, the National Committees can have the final say according to the rules they have made.
Primaries, caucuses, etc. are not true elections in the sense of the ones where a candidate is actually selected by real voters from between the two parties (that have a stranglehold on the election process) for an actual office.
They are nothing more than party politics. The process where members of the party, through private means, finagle a party representative for the real election...the one for office.
Therefore, when you and the shills claim 'voters' are being 'disenfranchised', nothing could be further from the truth.
And if you're not a member of the political party whose rules you disagree with and are complaining about, you don't have standing to do either.
If that system now seems screwed to you, and you wonder why it appears to consistently spit out crap, then you should cease your partisanship and join the ranks of those who want anyone, regardless of party affiliation, who fits the qualifications to be able to run for office, and those who want proportional representation of all political parties in the legislative bodies.
these super delegates can and will vote for WHOEVER they want....despite what the people wanted..........if they do so...it says that THEY think they know more than the voters do.......and that seems typical for what democrats stand for.........
they think they know how to spend our money better than we do.......so they tax the crap out of us.......
they like making laws that tells us how to eat.....they like control....and THAT is one thing i don't like about democrat policies...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 02, 2008, 08:30:05 AM
these super delegates can and will vote for WHOEVER they want....despite what the people wanted..........if they do so...it says that THEY think they know more than the voters do.......and that seems typical for what democrats stand for.........
they think they know how to spend our money better than we do.......so they tax the crap out of us.......
they like making laws that tells us how to eat.....they like control....and THAT is one thing i don't like about democrat policies...
Henry, that is SO convoluted. Do you ever actually
read anything posted?
1. The 'super delegates' you keep mindlessly harping on about are actually what are termed 'PLEOs', i.e.: unpledged delegates, and BOTH parties have them. They are used to assure the parties leaders/machine control.
2. The 'voters' you keep mindlessly harping on about are NOT 'voters' in the sense of voters when they are voting to elect an official from between the two parties candidates. The are supposed to be mere party members aiding the party machine determine who the party will offer up as a candidate for the actual election.
3. Your rant about 'control', 'taxes', and 'Democrats' and their 'policies' is misplaced in this discussion.
the bottom line IS........these so-called "un-pledged" delegates can vote for who EVER they want to.......despite the voice of the people............simply..because THEY know better than the general public?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 23, 2008, 08:38:42 AM
the bottom line IS........these so-called "un-pledged" delegates can vote for who EVER they want to.......despite the voice of the people............simply..because THEY know better than the general public?
Henry, are you really that dense or just that stubborn?
It's NOT the 'people' or the 'general public', it's members of an incorporated private group.
Just like at your job at an incorporated private group, the heads of the corporation keep control and can make decisions in complete opposition/indifference to your opinion.
Don't like it? Get involved and see if you can change party rules, or better yet help promote more parties involvement in the process and break the Repub/Demo strangelhold on the political process in this country.
Quote from: Y on June 09, 2008, 04:07:41 PM
Henry, are you really that dense or just that stubborn?
It's NOT the 'people' or the 'general public', it's members of an incorporated private group.
Just like at your job at an incorporated private group, the heads of the corporation keep control and can make decisions in complete opposition/indifference to your opinion.
Don't like it? Get involved and see if you can change party rules, or better yet help promote more parties involvement in the process and break the Repub/Demo strangelhold on the political process in this country.
If the Clinton-Obama fight continues to the convention floor - that is, if neither gets 2,025 delegates in the primaries - the nominee will be decided by the shadowy Super Delegates.
Actually, the Super Delegates themselves aren't shadowy - they're public figures. They're senators, congressional representatives, governors, members of the DNC and former Presidents (like Bill Clinton) - and they include Hillary and Barack themselves.
And how do they make their decisions?
Some, like Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) commit to voting for whoever wins the popular vote in their state (Clinton, in this case).
But mostly they decide who to vote for based on personal loyalty and horse-trading.
The Democrats (not the Republicans) instituted Super Delegates in the 1980s to prevent fringe candidates (like, for example, Dennis Kucinich) from whipping up a public frenzy and taking the nomination. In other words, the system is designed to protect the establishment candidate.
And from the list of SD's already lined up (Clinton has twice as many as Obama so far, including gay congress members Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin) it's clear that this strategy works. The names behind Clinton are, well, names.
The names behind Obama? Besides the Kennedys and the Illinois delegation, most folks haven't heard of them. (See the list of Super Delegates here.)
Winning by Super Delegate isn't good for anyone, no matter how fun it seems to have a fight on the convention floor. It means that the candidate is beholden to up to 796 people (the number of Super Delegates) in a way that eclipses lobbyist influence, because it is a direct vote.
It is also too reminicent of the shady business in Florida in 2000. Everything is perfectly legal....and yet it leaves a really bad taste in your mouth. About 20 percent of the vote can be decided by super delegates - giving each one delegate the power of about 153,000 voters.
So heres to wrapping this up in the next month. Because
when the Super Delegates step in, the power is taken from the people's hands.http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2008/02/06/what-are-super-delegates/
Quote from: Y on June 09, 2008, 04:07:41 PM
Henry, are you really that dense or just that stubborn?
It's NOT the 'people' or the 'general public', it's members of an incorporated private group.
Just like at your job at an incorporated private group, the heads of the corporation keep control and can make decisions in complete opposition/indifference to your opinion.
Don't like it? Get involved and see if you can change party rules, or better yet help promote more parties involvement in the process and break the Repub/Demo strangelhold on the political process in this country.
It is a crooked loop-hole that was instigated by democrats...........to be sure that the person THEY think is the best for their party........not really what the people themselves may want...............
that is not me being dense.........that is just the way it is Y....
sort of like the electoral college itself, eh henry? why can't the democratic party choose their candidate however they wish?
Quote from: bevis on September 30, 2008, 07:39:28 PM
sort of like the electoral college itself, eh henry? why can't the democratic party choose their candidate however they wish?
Well, if I was a democrat and voted for a particular person, and that particular person WON the most votes in my state, I would expect my delegates to nominate THAT particular person.....NOT, the one THEY think is better.
what if the person you voted for LOST the primary, wouldn't you want the superdelegates to nominate your choice? anyway, cool hand luke supercedes politics any old day!