dagblog - Comments for "Super-D's: Better Late to the Altar"

Our system of selecting the

stillidealistic — Tue, 05 Apr 2016 19:18:07 +0000

In reply to Super-D's: Better Late to the Altar

Our system of selecting the nominees for President is archaic, but when I sit and think about it, I can't come up with a different way that is fair all the way around. If you massively shorten the time frame, it isn't fair to the lesser known names who need time to build a constituency. I don't know how the feds can step in and tell all states that they have to do away with their caucuses and go to primaries, but the caucuses seem to be a violation of being able to cast your ballot in private. I heard tales of people feeling intimidated by representatives of Bernie Sanders when trying to caucus for Hillary. Nor does it seem to be fair to have the same states go first year after year. Why should a small, lily white state be the one to set the tone for the race?

So, I don't know. It seems to be a mess. And I certainly don't know how to clean it up.

First, I never see a problem

Richard Day — Tue, 05 Apr 2016 14:35:39 +0000

In reply to Super-D's: Better Late to the Altar

First, I never see a problem with making a Senator or Representative or Governor a super-delegate.

Should a city council member be a super? NO

These are elected representatives of course and as long as these reps stick to their own party, that is just fine with me.

It is just that there are too many supers involved in the process.

Personally, I do not give one goddamn what the repubs do. I gave up on them a long, long time ago.

The idea of super delegates goes back hundreds of years in this country.

And Plato would have felt better if all delegates were 'super'.

Plato, after all was no fan of democracy. Kind of like Gingrich. hahahahahah

There is nothing in the Constitution concerning parties or super delegates or broadcasting lies to the public on a daily basis; although Jefferson and Adams had no problem with libel and slander.

In a perfect world of course, all bad people would die and go to hell.

THE END

I haven't found a system I

Michael Maiello — Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:25:32 +0000

In reply to The primary system does not

I haven't found a system I like better thn the ranked preferences one. That one could really take the parties out of it almost entirely. I know there are good parliamentary systems out there that give smaller parties a voice, and that could be an improvement over what we do in the House or Senate, but I don't really want more party influence, just new voices.

It would certainly be nice this year to go to the polls and cast a first ballot for Clinton, a second for Sanders and maybe a third for some other lefty or social libertarian and then be done with it.

The primary system does not

CVille Dem — Tue, 05 Apr 2016 02:33:10 +0000

In reply to I'm pretty fed up with the

The primary system does not seem to be an effective way to choose a leader. Do you have some suggestions for other ways to do this? Preference Ranking makes a lot of sense to me, but only if the campaign season is short, like it is in England or Canada. (Oh, yes! What a great idea!)

are there other options on your mind?

Much ado is made over super

ocean-kat — Mon, 04 Apr 2016 21:26:38 +0000

In reply to Super-D's: Better Late to the Altar

Much ado is made over super delegates that I think is nonsense. They serve two purposes. The first is for the party political class to make a powerful endorsement of a candidate, if the voters care. It's only an endorsement until they actually cast their votes at the convention. I don't have any problem with the party political class making that endorsement.

The second is the escape valve you discussed. I believe that escape valve will only be triggered in extraordinary circumstances. Perhaps if the primary was so close that one candidate barely won the pledged delegates and the other won the popular vote.

I don't see any problem with super delegates. If Sanders was winning the delegate count and the popular vote the supers who endorsed Clinton would switch to him as they switched to Obama in 08. It's political suicide for the party to take the nomination from the clear winner of the primary contests and the supers know that.

Preference ranked voting or

ocean-kat — Mon, 04 Apr 2016 21:17:01 +0000

In reply to I'm pretty fed up with the

Preference ranked voting or what some call instant run off voting is a far better system. Sensible people are afraid to vote outside their team and give the election to the other team. There are very real differences between the two teams. As much as one finds themselves in disagreement with their preferred team. the other team is on a very real level worse.

I'm pretty fed up with the

Michael Maiello — Mon, 04 Apr 2016 20:51:45 +0000

In reply to Super-D's: Better Late to the Altar

I'm pretty fed up with the primary system as a way of choosing candidates. Parties were never supposed to be such an important part of the decision. Maybe we should drop primaries entirely and do preference ranked voting instead.