Why don't we just vote and count up the votes? Or would that be simplifying bureaucrazy too much and making things too plain and simple for this mixed up cracy world?
Why don't the parties just have their own internal nominations and elections for leaders and then tell the public who they chose to run on their behalf, and these parties could just leave all the poor Americans alone FFS. The whole insanely long process of the primaries totally fucks with everyone's head and degrades the office of the president in a re-election cycle, and it's completely unnecessary.
Ultimately they could. It is the party who chooses the nominee. We get to participate now, but in the good ol' days it was done through caucusing and lots of behind closed doors deal making. Primaries made selecting nominees a more democratic process and people felt more empowered. But it ultimately is the party's choice who they put up. The parties won't get rid of the primary process at this point because it would be seen as anti-choice and undemocratic. But the Dems held on to Superdelegates to make sure that the party still had the ability to influence/alter the selection process (and they still will, just not during the first vote). I wish the GOP had untethered Superdelegates who could have protected the country from tRUmp and not let a mass movement of stupid wreck the country.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Why don't we just vote and count up the votes? Or would that be simplifying bureaucrazy too much and making things too plain and simple for this mixed up cracy world?
Why don't the parties just have their own internal nominations and elections for leaders and then tell the public who they chose to run on their behalf, and these parties could just leave all the poor Americans alone FFS. The whole insanely long process of the primaries totally fucks with everyone's head and degrades the office of the president in a re-election cycle, and it's completely unnecessary.
Ultimately they could. It is the party who chooses the nominee. We get to participate now, but in the good ol' days it was done through caucusing and lots of behind closed doors deal making. Primaries made selecting nominees a more democratic process and people felt more empowered. But it ultimately is the party's choice who they put up. The parties won't get rid of the primary process at this point because it would be seen as anti-choice and undemocratic. But the Dems held on to Superdelegates to make sure that the party still had the ability to influence/alter the selection process (and they still will, just not during the first vote). I wish the GOP had untethered Superdelegates who could have protected the country from tRUmp and not let a mass movement of stupid wreck the country.
Well Canada's parties still do that, and it seems to work just fine, relatively anyway. And I don't think doing it is undemocratic because people still get to vote. What does seem rather undemocratic in the US is 1) it's essentially a 2 party system, and 2) too many voters don't vote (that is also a big prob in Canada). I am super-pro mandatory voting actually. Democracy doesn't exist at all when so many people aren't even voting. Make it law - I'm all for it! I bet Trump wouldn't be President if it were.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
This is a major structural change shifting the DNC towards populism. Any thoughts on this?
I don't understand how populism could be blamed on getting rid of superdelegates, which I think are insane. Can you please explain what you mean?
my understanding is that superdelegates are not held to the will of any voter. they vote for the primary candidate they like best. delegates are there to represent the people that chose them. you get rid of the superdelegates, then the people are represented fully and no "wild card" choices are allowed.
Thanks....... I still don't get how getting rid of superdelegates could be said to lead to populism. And what brand of populism are we talking about anyhow? The real meaning, or the kind that exists in grim reality?
the will of the people.
So the dictionary definition. I gathered that benjs posed that question as though populism is a negative, not a positive, which is why I don't get why getting rid of superdelegates would lead to it in that context. If populism in reality were simply "the will of the people" we certainly wouldn't all be so concerned about it. It's a whole lot more sinister than that in practice.
"...shifting the DNC towards populism". I didn't mean to imply either a positive or negative, I just wanted to see what the perception is on here.
By putting 100% of voting rights in the hands of delegates (who align their votes with how the public votes) instead of superdelegates (who align their votes typically with who 'the party' deem the favourite, and/or who puts most money into 'the party'), the 'heads of party' have less influence, meaning the public has more influence (roughly 15% of all delegates were superdelegates previously).
Ultimately, whether this move will be positive or not won't be known until 2020. On one hand, it potentially allows for a more progressive candidate to be successfully nominated as the party candidate. On the other hand, it limits the gatekeeping function of the DNC to equal those of the RNC, and one could argue some gatekeeping might have been nice when selecting a suitable RNC candidate at the last POTUS election.
The question at the end of the day, is who is worth believing in more: an uneducated and highly exploitable general population, or a likely corrupt and self-serving party? Democracy of the dumb, or gatekeeping of the greedy?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
This is a major structural change shifting the DNC towards populism. Any thoughts on this?
I don't understand how populism could be blamed on getting rid of superdelegates, which I think are insane. Can you please explain what you mean?
my understanding is that superdelegates are not held to the will of any voter. they vote for the primary candidate they like best. delegates are there to represent the people that chose them. you get rid of the superdelegates, then the people are represented fully and no "wild card" choices are allowed.
Thanks....... I still don't get how getting rid of superdelegates could be said to lead to populism. And what brand of populism are we talking about anyhow? The real meaning, or the kind that exists in grim reality?
the will of the people.
So the dictionary definition. I gathered that benjs posed that question as though populism is a negative, not a positive, which is why I don't get why getting rid of superdelegates would lead to it in that context. If populism in reality were simply "the will of the people" we certainly wouldn't all be so concerned about it. It's a whole lot more sinister than that in practice.
"...shifting the DNC towards populism". I didn't mean to imply either a positive or negative, I just wanted to see what the perception is on here.
By putting 100% of voting rights in the hands of delegates (who align their votes with how the public votes) instead of superdelegates (who align their votes typically with who 'the party' deem the favourite, and/or who puts most money into 'the party'), the 'heads of party' have less influence, meaning the public has more influence (roughly 15% of all delegates were superdelegates previously).
Ultimately, whether this move will be positive or not won't be known until 2020. On one hand, it potentially allows for a more progressive candidate to be successfully nominated as the party candidate. On the other hand, it limits the gatekeeping function of the DNC to equal those of the RNC, and one could argue some gatekeeping might have been nice when selecting a suitable RNC candidate at the last POTUS election.
The question at the end of the day, is who is worth believing in more: an uneducated and highly exploitable general population, or a likely corrupt and self-serving party? Democracy of the dumb, or gatekeeping of the greedy?
The way you put it, Ben, it sounds to me like only having regular delegates and no super delegates makes sense and is more true to our form of "by the people, for the people, etc." government.
But then we get to your latter questions and it gets tough. Those are excellent questions with no easy answers. A bit of a conundrum, really. I think the only way to solve that would be to require a certain level of voter education- sort of like having to pass a driver's test in order to be allowed to drive. But of course many would scream bloody murder at that notion.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Why don't we just vote and count up the votes? Or would that be simplifying bureaucrazy too much and making things too plain and simple for this mixed up cracy world?
Why don't the parties just have their own internal nominations and elections for leaders and then tell the public who they chose to run on their behalf, and these parties could just leave all the poor Americans alone FFS. The whole insanely long process of the primaries totally fucks with everyone's head and degrades the office of the president in a re-election cycle, and it's completely unnecessary.
Comments
By putting 100% of voting rights in the hands of delegates (who align their votes with how the public votes) instead of superdelegates (who align their votes typically with who 'the party' deem the favourite, and/or who puts most money into 'the party'), the 'heads of party' have less influence, meaning the public has more influence (roughly 15% of all delegates were superdelegates previously).
Ultimately, whether this move will be positive or not won't be known until 2020. On one hand, it potentially allows for a more progressive candidate to be successfully nominated as the party candidate. On the other hand, it limits the gatekeeping function of the DNC to equal those of the RNC, and one could argue some gatekeeping might have been nice when selecting a suitable RNC candidate at the last POTUS election.
The question at the end of the day, is who is worth believing in more: an uneducated and highly exploitable general population, or a likely corrupt and self-serving party? Democracy of the dumb, or gatekeeping of the greedy?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
www.headstonesband.com