Posted on May 1, 2016
Should superdelegates or delegates as a whole be abolished?
23.7K
127
96
10
10
0
Posted in these groups: 
Election 2016
Republicans
Democrats
Democracy
Office of the President (POTUS)
Election 2016 Republicans Democrats Democracy Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 32
16
16
0
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.
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.
(16)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Have you ever met that one Marine who was too damn smart? If you haven't go look in the mirror and tell him hello.
Not quite flawed. Mickey D's tells me to vote for Ronald being he's representing Mickey D's. So me believing they have the best whatever I do do that. Where the confusion comes in is they tally the votes, move them to the side, and say we really want Ronaldette to represent us. So you have voided millions of votes, only to listen to....stakeholders (superdelegates)?
Absolutely not. The NFL draft was this week, and every team won....except America. The 2016 Presidential draft class is nothing but busts. Bernie is my lone holdout. Not that he is good, but that his ideas will form policies in some way or fashion later on. He will be studied for decades to see was he really that far off. To me that makes him the "winner".
We have Trump as a serious candidate for office. He should be commissioned, and his name changed to GEN. Mayhem. That's all we'd get from him.
Not quite flawed. Mickey D's tells me to vote for Ronald being he's representing Mickey D's. So me believing they have the best whatever I do do that. Where the confusion comes in is they tally the votes, move them to the side, and say we really want Ronaldette to represent us. So you have voided millions of votes, only to listen to....stakeholders (superdelegates)?
Absolutely not. The NFL draft was this week, and every team won....except America. The 2016 Presidential draft class is nothing but busts. Bernie is my lone holdout. Not that he is good, but that his ideas will form policies in some way or fashion later on. He will be studied for decades to see was he really that far off. To me that makes him the "winner".
We have Trump as a serious candidate for office. He should be commissioned, and his name changed to GEN. Mayhem. That's all we'd get from him.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SSG Warren Swan - Almost exactly right, except change Stakeholders to Shareholders. Everyone is a stakeholder (interest), only McD's is Shareholders (vested interest).
(2)
(0)
SGT Chris Birkinbine
SSG Warren Swan - It sounds like you are finally realizing how the presidential elections work and are upset about it. Welcome to the knowing minority.
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
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.
(9)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
MCPO Roger Collins - but in this case, they don't matter. If it REALLY is the "will of the people" then WE effect change....with or without them.
(1)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
SSG Warren Swan - Not following you, Swannie. The only direct effect we have is with local elections and even those are controlled by state D & R establishments. If you see a way, other than anarchy, like to hear it.
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
MCPO Roger Collins - Politicians use ads to "beat" the other down. What is there to stop the populace from using the most powerful tool out there (social media) to get the message out? I'm not the smartest, but making the parties explain the hard questions without being able to use the usual political double talk. Sooner or later the lamestream media outlets would have to pick up on it, and in turn they'll force the hands of the establishment to explain how a "simple" process became perverted and misunderstood. Make them tell us how are you of the people, for the people, but don't respect the will of the people. In 2014 that was the GOP's calling card when they took over congress. I reckon they forgot that part when they got in. Dems are no better. It doesn't have to be anarchy, but we all know there is one fool in the bunch that will make a mountain out of a molehill.
(1)
(0)
GySgt Thomas Reichard
MCPO Roger Collins - I too defer to the Constitution. But primaries are strictly party and State issues. The Constitution does not come to bear here.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
This election cycle has really exposed the bankruptcy of the whole system.
Walt
Walt
(5)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
So what do you think is the solution? Either we do away with the whole delegate system, or bind them to the people regardless of the number of ballots at the conventions?
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
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?
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?
(4)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SGM, It's been a LONG time since I've seen you, and I hope you and the family are good. I don't see a problem with what you said; it is your opinion. Delegates for the RNC is new 2012 worth of new, and this election showed how misguided they were used. In the news it was mentioned how Trump would use his "vast hotel and resorts" as means to get them on his side. Cruz was no better. I find it offensive they could do that, and override the will of the people. Or in Trumps case, he WIN'S the state, but Cruz goes behind him and takes some of his delegates away. That speaks for his character to me. In the DNC, they've had this for awhile, so they have a better take on how it would be run. I disagree with Superdeligates. There is no excuse to hold a slot for someone just because they were "important" members of the party at one time or another. How can the current POTUS and VPOTUS be Superdeligates? That is wrong, but they are. I said it below, the GOP screwed themselves good this cycle with releasing a platoon of JV level candidates. Then the bickering comes with how the debates are run, who gets on the main stage and who's on the JV stage. It was completely unprofessional. The Dems had it a little better, but once O'Malley left, there was only two, so their debates were "better" in quantity and quality. Looking at them for the RNC it was the Trump show all night long, Dems knew it was Hillary, but Bernie is surprising at the same time. Count him out, and there he is right beside you. HRC will win. Not a fan, will not be voting, but she's gonna win the whole thing. Trump can make deals that involve money. He's FAR from a ignorant person, but for every "stinger" he could throw at her, all she would have to do is ask him "where were you", and "what first hand experience do you have dealing with foreign presidents or OM's"? He can say what he wants, but comparing resume to resume, he's falling short...BIG TIME.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SSG Warren Swan It is good to see you again, and I likewise hope you and your family are doing well.
I think the media has been misleading you and other people in their coverage of what Cruz's organization was doing regarding delegates. The rules bind a candidates delegates to vote for the candidate they represent on the first ballot (and often for a few additional ballots.) If there weren't such rules, then again, with 20 candidates there is a very real chance that no one can get a majority and then what do we do?
But what the media isn't telling you is that delegates are bound on the first vote minimum. This also brings up the question of who the delegates are. Each candidate has the chance to vet the people who will be his delegates. If the candidate fails to confirm that a delegate he sponsors is really on his side, who is at fault? I've said before and I'll say again - it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a candidate that you are 100% in agreement with, unless you are running for office yourself.
What Cruz has done is understand the rules and make sure his delegates are rock solid for him. Then he's done additional work to see who could be convinced to switch to him on a later ballot. Again, if the nomination is hung, there has to be some way to resolve the process, or we have to start over from the beginning.
I agree with you completely on superdelegates, and that's why I don't understand why you are so angry about the RNC's solution. Whatever you do, you can't have a hung jury. No matter how many votes it takes, someone has to bend a little to get the process over and someone nominated.
Trump is certainly winning the popular vote, but he may still be short of the magic 50% plus 1 which is necessary for a 1st ballot win. Cruz is working on the assumption that a larger portion of voters want anyone but Trump. If that is the case, doesn't the majority win? And if the majority says, "Anyone but Trump", then who gets the nomination? Obviously there would have to be a compromise candidate. Cruz would like to be the compromise nominee, but so would Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, John Kasich, and Jeb Bush.
This is by no means the first time this has happened. Lincoln was in 3rd place at the Rep convention in 1860, but still got the nomination as a compromise candidate.
Now, as far as resume's go, I wouldn't care to run on Hillary's resume' for making $21 million for speeches to Wall Street while talking about income redistribution, nor would I want to explain her attitude to security which caused 4 people to lose their lives in Benghazi, nor would I want to explain how I am for empowering women, while deliberately targeting and slandering the women Slick Willie molested.
But I think most importantly the country may be tired of professional politicians. The very power of Sander's and Trump's runs has demonstrated that the people may be ready for someone other than the lying, thieving, high-taxing, big-spending politicians which have become a fixture of American politics. 36 years ago we elected a movie star, instead of a politician, and he didn't do that bad. Maybe Trump will be OK.
I think the media has been misleading you and other people in their coverage of what Cruz's organization was doing regarding delegates. The rules bind a candidates delegates to vote for the candidate they represent on the first ballot (and often for a few additional ballots.) If there weren't such rules, then again, with 20 candidates there is a very real chance that no one can get a majority and then what do we do?
But what the media isn't telling you is that delegates are bound on the first vote minimum. This also brings up the question of who the delegates are. Each candidate has the chance to vet the people who will be his delegates. If the candidate fails to confirm that a delegate he sponsors is really on his side, who is at fault? I've said before and I'll say again - it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a candidate that you are 100% in agreement with, unless you are running for office yourself.
What Cruz has done is understand the rules and make sure his delegates are rock solid for him. Then he's done additional work to see who could be convinced to switch to him on a later ballot. Again, if the nomination is hung, there has to be some way to resolve the process, or we have to start over from the beginning.
I agree with you completely on superdelegates, and that's why I don't understand why you are so angry about the RNC's solution. Whatever you do, you can't have a hung jury. No matter how many votes it takes, someone has to bend a little to get the process over and someone nominated.
Trump is certainly winning the popular vote, but he may still be short of the magic 50% plus 1 which is necessary for a 1st ballot win. Cruz is working on the assumption that a larger portion of voters want anyone but Trump. If that is the case, doesn't the majority win? And if the majority says, "Anyone but Trump", then who gets the nomination? Obviously there would have to be a compromise candidate. Cruz would like to be the compromise nominee, but so would Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, John Kasich, and Jeb Bush.
This is by no means the first time this has happened. Lincoln was in 3rd place at the Rep convention in 1860, but still got the nomination as a compromise candidate.
Now, as far as resume's go, I wouldn't care to run on Hillary's resume' for making $21 million for speeches to Wall Street while talking about income redistribution, nor would I want to explain her attitude to security which caused 4 people to lose their lives in Benghazi, nor would I want to explain how I am for empowering women, while deliberately targeting and slandering the women Slick Willie molested.
But I think most importantly the country may be tired of professional politicians. The very power of Sander's and Trump's runs has demonstrated that the people may be ready for someone other than the lying, thieving, high-taxing, big-spending politicians which have become a fixture of American politics. 36 years ago we elected a movie star, instead of a politician, and he didn't do that bad. Maybe Trump will be OK.
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SGM (Join to see) - SGM, we're all good to go. I'm not upset about how the RNC is doing things, I think it was cool how they had the rule made in 2012. But suddenly enact it ONLY because of Trumps' rise. No problem at all...at least to me. My issue comes when people (fellow voters) begin voicing concerns about Trump and how more "established" candidates aren't doing so good, Ryan comes out with this "You don't pick the nominee, WE do". To me that is a direct slap in the face to anyone who votes Republican. Did it need to be said? Maybe? How it was said was blatantly disrespectful. I DO have an issue with that. As bad as I don't like Trump, I find myself defending him more and more just because of the dirty games that are made up...ONLY to him. Had those games been against HRC, I would not care one bit. I know politics is a dirty winner take all deal, but this is ridiculous to the lows the establishment would go to "destroy" a candidate who is running under their own banner.
The country IS tired of career politicians. I KNOW I am!! At the same time, I don't want someone who thinks of himself before the country. Trump is about Trump. He could care less about anything or anyone, as long as he's in charge, and making money. HRC is also all about herself, but she has a more uphill climb being most of America already doesn't like her, believe all kinds of negative things about her, but I believe when the crap hits the fan, it will be less about "ME", and more about "how does this affect the country".
Looking at some of Trumps advisors, Flag officers who HAD to retire due to their mouth's. Folks who've done bids in jail, the usual suspects to include the most UNintelligent woman in the world Sarah Palin. If he picks Cruz as his VP, Trump better have some heavy body armor, cuz Cruz will stab him in the back and make it seem like he's doing you a favor. Rubio would be a good choice, but too much bad blood, and Kasich would too, but again too much bad blood. As wrong as this sounds, I'm not voting. I'll take what comes and make it work for me, but this cycles ignorance has really turned me off. It;s been the WORST campaign season ever, and I want no part of it. If we go to war, count me in, whatever way I can help. But it won't be due some "allegiance" to the POTUS, it'll be due to my allegiance to those in uniform, and my country.
The country IS tired of career politicians. I KNOW I am!! At the same time, I don't want someone who thinks of himself before the country. Trump is about Trump. He could care less about anything or anyone, as long as he's in charge, and making money. HRC is also all about herself, but she has a more uphill climb being most of America already doesn't like her, believe all kinds of negative things about her, but I believe when the crap hits the fan, it will be less about "ME", and more about "how does this affect the country".
Looking at some of Trumps advisors, Flag officers who HAD to retire due to their mouth's. Folks who've done bids in jail, the usual suspects to include the most UNintelligent woman in the world Sarah Palin. If he picks Cruz as his VP, Trump better have some heavy body armor, cuz Cruz will stab him in the back and make it seem like he's doing you a favor. Rubio would be a good choice, but too much bad blood, and Kasich would too, but again too much bad blood. As wrong as this sounds, I'm not voting. I'll take what comes and make it work for me, but this cycles ignorance has really turned me off. It;s been the WORST campaign season ever, and I want no part of it. If we go to war, count me in, whatever way I can help. But it won't be due some "allegiance" to the POTUS, it'll be due to my allegiance to those in uniform, and my country.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SSG Warren Swan We aren't far apart. I am voting because no matter how bad Trump MIGHT be, I think Hillary is a disaster.
Personally, I hope Trump picks Dr Ben Carson as running mate. Carson won't stab him in the back and might convince him to be a little more civil. Plus Carson will appeal to conservatives. Best of all, neither is a career politician, and I still think the anger of the electorate against career politicians (including Hillary) isn't slaked.
Personally, I hope Trump picks Dr Ben Carson as running mate. Carson won't stab him in the back and might convince him to be a little more civil. Plus Carson will appeal to conservatives. Best of all, neither is a career politician, and I still think the anger of the electorate against career politicians (including Hillary) isn't slaked.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
PO3 Donald Murphy - Many of the super delegates are super delegates BECAUSE they are directly elected officials. So if we as voters have adult attention spans, we can ultimately hold them accountable. If we forget their actions that we find unacceptable and vote them back in, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We are responsible for their job security or lack thereof.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Actually the Dems have been using then openly for years. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it was openly seem. The GOP started it in 2012, and never admitted to it until Trump comes along.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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
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
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
I like what you've said. I would bind any delegates from either party to the candidate that wins the state including DC, and the territories. That would mean the people want this person to represent them. As time goes on, should the candidate be eliminated or drop out, those candidates should not be allowed to just "float" around. They would be bound until the convention and again the people would have the opportunity to decide who they want, and those delegates are bound by the populace. Keeping them bound to the populace and not to a candidate would mean that Trump cannot buy all the voters in Michigan, but he can afford to buy all the delegates in Michigan. On the Democrat side, no more "instant" and "permanent" Superdeligates. Again, bind them to the voters, and keep them bound by them until a consensus is made. No floating delegates. Independents would be an issue that would need addressing. I'm not sure how this would work other than in states where you cannot be indie, they will be forced to open themselves up to the indie candidates. Since there are not at large indie candidates, we'd need to sort out a means to make it equal for them to also be able to carry them. Maybe if an indie candidate won the state's popular vote, they win all of the delegates from both parties?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Yes... Yes.... Yes... The popular vote, not the party elite, should decide...
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
But the electoral college is protected in the Constitution right? So are you saying (in the event I'm right) we make an amendment that eliminates them? IF I'm correct, that would set one DANGEROUS precedent, and allow either the states to hold a convention to make what they want, or strip the respect the document holds in congress to those who can and would use it to do or undo whatever.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
It could be the 28th amendment to the constitution. We've done it 27 times already, I don't see any harm in one more amendment.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google