By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Jimbo1337 on 04 May 2016
Edit Thread
Wonktonodi said:
Jimbo1337 said:

Why does it matter if he is Canadian?  

They counted them along with the other delegates because you had Hillary Clinton (Elite) going against Barack Obama (Elite).  Both had a reasonable amount of superdelagates unlike what is currently being seen where Bernie Sanders only has 7%.  Hillary Clinton was leading in superdelegates up until May 11, 2008.  In 2008, they sat down and thought who would be the better candidate, the first black president or the first woman president?  Seeing as how Barack Obama was holding bigger rallies and had all of the energy, they went with him and switched over these unbound superdelegates to him causing him to clinch and become the demoractic nominee on June 3rd 2008.

The reason why they are holding off in mentioning the superdelegates this time because, as I stated before, Bernie only has 7% of the superdelegates. What would be the point for some delegate analyst to go up and discuss the rigged delegate count?  Let's look at Bernie Sanders chances of winning the election down 350 delegates just after two states!!  Or even better, the next state was Nevada where Hillary won by like 5% of the vote over Bernie but then gained like 108 delegates that day (mainly due to MORE superdelegates).  After three states it was something like 508 delegates to Bernie Sanders 77 delegates.  Imagine an analyst going up to the board and discussing Bernie Sanders chances of winning and becoming the Democratic Nominee where he is down 431 delegates just after 3 states!  That would be completely laughable.  So it is no surprise to me and many others to see these analysts instantly say "well let's just forget about the superdelegates at this point".  Holding off in mentioning these superdelegates doesn't eliminate the fact that you have a rigged "democratic" nominating process.

You had some states that were proportional, winner take all, and hybrid states.  The hybrid states turned into winner take all if one candidate won the majority of the vote.  Each state decided on their own rules, which is why you see such diversity.  Of course you do have some instances where the elites wanted to shift the delegates in favor of the elite candidates.  Take for instance Florida's winner take all state in an election that had Jeb Bush, governor of Florida, and Marco Rubio, senator of Florida.  Those 99 delegates were supposed to go to one of those candidates, but ended up backfiring and going to Doanld Trump.  I am not saying that the republican side is perfect, but at least the voters could elect an outsider, unlike what is perceived to be impossible on the democratic side.

**Edit**  If the Democrats had some winner take all states, at least they would know ahead of time what was at stake and could therefore campaign harder in those given states.  But people like Bernie Sanders have absolutely ZERO control over these superdelegates.  

when you said "So I will take my "Republic" over your laughable "Democracy" any day." It seemed like you were assuming he was a Democrat when he's not even a US citisen.

As for the media coverage of the democratic primaries, it was actually the democratic party that requested the change.

I agree there are absolutely flaws in both systems. The 15% of democratice delages beign superdelagates is one,  7% in the republican party is definatly better.

The mix of systems between states is part of it. Proportional is definaly most democritic, winner take all least and the hybrid system having some flaws where it give members of a party in a congrestional distric that is mostly made up of the other party have more sway over a delagate than those in a distric made up mostly of the same party.

Another issue is how much the parties accept people with no party preference to vote in their primaries.

One of the biggest issues though is the order the states go. They give people in the early states much more power than those is the later states, since some candidates drop out very early.  Plus some states, CA especially have a primary that doesn't matter at all since the race is usually rapped up by then.

 

Ahhh I see.  Nothing that I said was directed at padib in any way.  I was more or less just speaking my mind in a general sense.

I completely agree that it is rather frustrating that states like Iowa and New Hampshire get to eliminate so many potential candidates.  I am in favor of a bound proportional delegate system in which the candidate that has the most delegates by the end is the nominee of that given party.  This ensures that each state gets to vote.  Poor California