Should superdelegates or delegates as a whole be abolished?

SSG Warren Swan — Sun, 01 May 2016 18:16:27 -0400

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 1 at 2016 6:19 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 01 May 2016 18:19:06 -0400

We must first remember that they are PARTY issues, not GOVERNMENT issues.

Replace the words Democrat and Republican with McDonalds and Burger King, and realize that we have TWO private Corporations deciding who is going to run our Government.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made May 1 at 2016 6:26 PM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Sun, 01 May 2016 18:26:22 -0400

It is a really stupid deal, it should be totally up to the people.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 1 at 2016 6:28 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sun, 01 May 2016 18:28:35 -0400

Parties get to decide who represents them. You can always run as an Independent but the Odds are heavily against you. I can always disagree with the Party and choose the opposing party or do a write in that is always an option. I have no problems with a Party or Organization deciding who should represents them.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made May 1 at 2016 6:40 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Sun, 01 May 2016 18:40:33 -0400

After the last 20 years...we would better served by a National lottery. Crap the president is a figure head anyway. One that spent millions to get a job that pays peanuts.

Response by Maj John Bell made May 1 at 2016 6:41 PM

Maj John Bell — Sun, 01 May 2016 18:41:18 -0400

I think the concept of super delegates is an attempt to stop passions of the moment from overriding long-term goals of the parties. I offer a VERY flawed analogy, The Senate -- longer term, no complete turnover at an election cycle, less vulnerable to passions of the moment = super delegates. The House of Representatives -- shorter term, complete turnover at every election cycle, more subject to passions of the moment = regular delegates. Is it good? Is it bad? Personally I think the founding fathers were smart as hell even though they disagreed on most things.

Response by PO3 David Fries made May 1 at 2016 6:51 PM

PO3 David Fries — Sun, 01 May 2016 18:51:44 -0400

A purely popular vote would put the vote in the hands of the areas with the largest populations. That would make the government run by maybe one or two states.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made May 1 at 2016 7:20 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sun, 01 May 2016 19:20:59 -0400

Reset the clock back to the Founder's idea of what the Delegate (elector for you COL Ted) and give it another 237 years to become corrupt again. When one reads why the original process was developed as it was, it protected the entire nation from being controlled by the few major population centers, along with a couple of other factors. The idea that it morphed into 50 states, each with 50 sets of rules is ludicrous. When it comes to the Primaries for state representation, no problem, you live with your mistakes. When it comes to the individual that becomes all our leader the rules should be the same for all states, Don't care what they are, but be consistent in the General Elections.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made May 1 at 2016 8:02 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Sun, 01 May 2016 20:02:39 -0400

We the People? I think for the first time in 20+ years I did actually have a small say in who the candidate would be. We shall see in November if the Parties over rule the people....

Response by Capt Walter Miller made May 1 at 2016 8:15 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Sun, 01 May 2016 20:15:57 -0400

This election cycle has really exposed the bankruptcy of the whole system.

Walt

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2016 9:34 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 May 2016 21:34:08 -0400

SSG Warren Swan Both parties are so aggregiously behaving. Love or hate Mr. Trump, there is a concerted and shameful attack on his character. The fact that Hillary is a known sociopath and narcissist and yet could be elected.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2016 5:20 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 May 2016 17:20:45 -0400

Yes, and while we are at it.. let's ditch the electoral college as well. 1 vote in any state is = to 1 vote in any other state.

Response by COL Charles Williams made May 3 at 2016 11:40 PM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 03 May 2016 23:40:13 -0400

Yes... Yes.... Yes... The popular vote, not the party elite, should decide...

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2016 8:35 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 May 2016 08:35:06 -0400

SSG Warren Swan I understand your frustration with a system that made a lot of sense when horses were the main form of transportation. But it still makes sense today.

As Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS noted, each party gets to set its own rules. If you don't like a party's rules, you can tell them, become a delegate and tell them, join another party, or set up your own party. In the latter case, you will want to set rules that will attract people to your party.

State parties also set rules to attract candidates and to get their issues brought to the attention of the candidates. A small state may choose a winner-take-all process, which might cause a candidate to spend more time campaigning there, or at least make the candidate aware of their issues and the importance of paying some level of attention to those issues to capture that block of votes. A larger state is more likely to choose proportional representation, so each citizen can feel that someone represented their views at the convention.

Let's also consider the current election. If all 20 of the original Republican candidates were still in the race, It would be likely that no one would get 50.001%. What do we do then, start the entire election process over? And if so, with how many candidates? Just the top two? And if more than two, what happens if there's another split election? Start again?

I voted for Rubio. I'd like to think that the Rubio delegates will have a chance to represent my views to the convention, even if Rubio won't win. And that's another thing that the delegate process is all about.

Now superdelegates are a different issue, since superdelegates are party hacks who can be depended on to vote the party line, because they want lucrative jobs in the administration. But in spite of not liking this idea, it's certainly in line with modern Democrat thinking, i.e. that our citizens are peons at best, serfs at worst, and are unable to make rational decisions, and thus need a nanny government to protect them. Serfs do not have the right to bear arms, but the security guards of the Democrat elite do. Democrat elites can benefit from government largesse (like Solyndra) or can have astronomical salaries for giving speeches (like Clinton and Elizabeth Warren) while talking about income redistribution. Redistribution is only for serfs, not for the elite. Democrat elites are self-annointed to make decisions for the rest of us, and not only don't have to pay the cost for those decisions, but are able to profit from their membership in the ruling elite.

Of course someone will vociferously object to my characterization above, and to them I have a simple question: If the Democrat party really represented the will of the people, why do they need a 20% boost to make sure the will of the people goes the way they think it should go?

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made May 5 at 2016 8:56 AM

MAJ Bill Darling — Thu, 05 May 2016 08:56:22 -0400

It's a great question, one I've gone back and forth on over the last decade. I don't claim to have a political science degree but I think I've got the basics and it's important to see how we got here. Part of the reason for delegates, I believe, was technology and geography. In the 1700s you simply couldn't count and validate every registered voter over a several hundred thousand square mile area in a reasonable amount of time. And remember that the Founding Father eschewed and were leery of democracy (which was somewhat validated by the excesses of the French Revolution) and were committed to a republic, in which an educated and experienced group of men with skin in the game did their best to pick their next leaders rather than leave it to the mob who could be swayed by pandering and unrealistic rhetorical promises.

More recently, we should remember why the DNC has so-called super delegates in the first place and why the RNC, perhaps secretly, envies it. Super delegates were put in place following the landslide loss of McGovern and the single term of Carter. They were a way of party leaders to influence the primary process by regaining some of the power which had been lost in 1968, and had indirectly led to populist but unelectable or unrelectable candidates. While the RNC can claim that its process is more small D "democratic" than the DNC, I wonder if it wishes it had a super delegate system which could have negated Trump's rise, who may become an unelectable nominee.

Response by Cpl Joshua Caldwell made May 5 at 2016 9:04 AM

Cpl Joshua Caldwell — Thu, 05 May 2016 09:04:25 -0400

Super delegates should not exists. They are just a class of people who magically get to override the will of the voters, and vote as they see fit.
Regular delegates need to stay, but in my opinion they should have some standard duty to represent the will of the voters who send them to the conventions. As it sits now, some delegates can do whatever they chose, others are bound to varying extents. At the very least, I feel that a delegate has to be bound to the candidate that his voters choose until that candidate is no longer a viable option. In the case of a contested convention, a delegate to one of the guys who has no chance should be bound to vote for that guy in the first round, after that, to the candidate most like the first guy, and so on until there is one winner with enough votes to carry the convention.
The current system sucks. Candidates can win by wooing delegates regardless of the votes of primary voters.
Just my opinion, until I snap and run for Congress myself
Semper Fi
Josh Caldwell

Response by SPC Marc Sachs made May 5 at 2016 9:54 AM

SPC Marc Sachs — Thu, 05 May 2016 09:54:56 -0400

This is more so the case with the Democratic Party. The Republican Party does not use Super Delegates and when the candidate reaches the 1237 needed to be the nominee nothing will take away that. However, within the Democratic Party the super Delegate (political insiders) gets to say who the nominee is. Your best bet is don't vote Democrat if you want the people to choose.

Response by SSG Ronald Robinson made May 5 at 2016 12:57 PM

SSG Ronald Robinson — Thu, 05 May 2016 12:57:26 -0400

No.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2016 4:07 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 May 2016 16:07:24 -0400

Delegates should act on the votes of the public. Superdelegates need to be abolished. Any DILUTION of the PUBLIC'S BALLOT should never be compromised. Who created a super delegate and precisely what was the stated need for a superdelegate? Maybe the old entrenched party politicians realized they would lose their " lobbyist " perks, not to mention the very FACT that the WILL OF THE PEOPLE would be trashed for the sake of ego.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 6 at 2016 12:55 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 May 2016 00:55:11 -0400

Parties & delegates should be abolished. parties are not what the founding fathers intended at all.

Response by TSgt Donnie Meaders made May 6 at 2016 4:14 PM

TSgt Donnie Meaders — Fri, 06 May 2016 16:14:14 -0400

Yes, as well as the electoral college BS! Our votes don't count in a presidential election anyway. The president will be selected by those who control the gubment regardless of how many actual votes a person gets. Besides, we have seen in the past 2 elections the blatant violation of voting laws and yet no one did anything about it. I am sure it has happened in prior elections as well but it never was known or reported. The thing is, you SHOULD vote anyway because who knows, at some point America and her gubment might not be so corrupt. Pipe dream I know but you still gotta hope!

Response by SrA Bruce Kersman made May 7 at 2016 7:06 AM

SrA Bruce Kersman — Sat, 07 May 2016 07:06:22 -0400

You are Absolutely Correct!! Let's see if this subject ever comes about!!

Response by FN George Woodruff made May 7 at 2016 7:59 AM

FN George Woodruff — Sat, 07 May 2016 07:59:42 -0400

I believe that the right to decide our leaders belongs to the people and not the select few who think it is their right to make those selections for us. Registration should be by party and only those who are registered with that party should be allowed to vote in that party's primary. No crossover voting should be allowed as party members alone should make the decision as to who shall represent them. The candidate winning the highest vote total in a particular state should be declared the winner of that state. The amount of each state's proportional representation in the nominating process should depend on its population similar to the "one man one vote" idea that reapportions legislative seats. When all states and territories have voted the candidate who wins the majority of the proportional voting strength of all states and territories combined shall be declared the nominee of that party. Delegates to the party's convention could be selected by Congressional Districts and be authorized to determine that party's platform. This (or something like it) would allow the voters of each party to have the final say on who should represent their views instead of a few establishment politicians and their financial backers making the decision for us.

Response by SFC Ron Peck made May 7 at 2016 9:12 AM

SFC Ron Peck — Sat, 07 May 2016 09:12:19 -0400

First let me apologize for the length of this post, but I wanted to let the first President who tended to wax long and aliquant about the subject of parties have his full quote.
We the people let these private groups decide our candidates for whatever reason, laziness, lack of knowledge, or lack of care.
There are other candidates running for President and other positions in government. They don’t have a chance at getting elected, because the people won’t pay any attention to them or at least not enough to get them on the ballet in all 50 states. They do have better results in local races, such as state elections. There are Libertarians, Constitutionalist, Socialist, and Green party candidates elected in local and state races. However they never seem to get enough attention and more importantly enough money to get the attention they need in our media driven elections.

John Adams Said: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

George Washington Said: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”

If we don’t want to see a two party system we must start finding others we can support and support them in every way.

Response by TSgt Ronald Iniguez made May 7 at 2016 9:37 AM

TSgt Ronald Iniguez — Sat, 07 May 2016 09:37:48 -0400

My opinion? The two party system is broken. The founders set up our election system with one simple rule: Of the People, By the People and For the People!! THE PEOPLE, not 2 different Jackass groups pushing each other around and using bullying tactics or out and out bribery to get you to vote their way.
What is the solution? I don't know, but it's going to take a fundamental transformation in the election process and in the hearts and minds of the population. Otherwise, we may as well give over the nation to whatever foreign power wants to try and fix it themselves. That is not an option for me.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2016 11:38 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 May 2016 11:38:09 -0400

One person,,,,,, One Vote!

Response by GySgt Thomas Reichard made May 7 at 2016 2:44 PM

GySgt Thomas Reichard — Sat, 07 May 2016 14:44:52 -0400

The simple answer is the parties do what they will. The selection of Convention Delegates has nothing to to with the Federal Govt. They are in essence private entities who are selecting someone to represent them in the presidential election.

Come November the issue then becomes a Govt. question. Here the Constitution defines how Electors are chosen to represent each State in the Electoral College.

In short if you have a problem with how the primaries are run take it up with your party. If it's the other party, then truth be told it's none of your business.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2016 11:36 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 May 2016 23:36:22 -0400

Parties should be eliminated, not just super delegates. People should run unaffiliated in the primaries with the top 3 running in the general election. The candidate with 50% plus 1 wins the state and the associated electoral college votes. No more GOP or Dems to tell candidates how to run their campaign, how to buy-off delegates and how to perform their duties once in office.

Response by SFC Ernest Thurston made May 8 at 2016 1:13 AM

SFC Ernest Thurston — Sun, 08 May 2016 01:13:30 -0400

I don't see a real problem with delegates except that there should be one standard in every state for how they are selected. Some have caucuses, some have direct elections some have appointments by party bosses. Why can't it be simple. As for super delegates, I think that's just crazy and a way for party bosses to protect their turf. They should be illegal.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made May 9 at 2016 3:28 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Mon, 09 May 2016 15:28:01 -0400

Sp4 Byron Skinner. This issue is rather complicated, the two major Political Parties have different electro processes and as mentioned by Sgt. Kennedy the political parties are not a function of Government. That said since they are the main pathway to the most powerful person in the world and there should a be stronger voter influence into the selection process then we now have. One way would be to hold a national Primary, all on the same day, instead of the state by state circus with all of the machinations of voting and party caucus, back room agreements or what ever the states process may be. Super delegates generally are party elected officials, and lobbyists who support party supported legislation. The elected delegates tend to be a lower level party members reward who have supported and worked for the party for a long time and local donors. The Super Delegates are important especially for funding but I think they should announce their choice of a candidate before the Primary.

Response by CPT Alexander Grant made May 10 at 2016 1:22 AM

CPT Alexander Grant — Tue, 10 May 2016 01:22:58 -0400

we basically have the technology now to have free & fair elections, and not need this delegate crap.
but it's far too profitable to the elite to maintain the current system.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2016 12:53 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 May 2016 12:53:45 -0400

They're elected, as well? To me the process is democratic.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2017 8:05 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:05:09 -0400

The concept of superdelegate is anti-democratic and elitist. It is contrary to the purpose of the primaries. I would say yes, it needs to be abolished.
But then again, we are talking about politics, the whole thing has been getting so corrupted, that it is starting to resemble politics in a banana republic. Extrememly sad, especially for someone like myself, who grew up in Puerto Rico, admiring how clean politics were in the USA, and how Americans would go on with their lives after election. Unfortunately, this is no longer true.