Should the USA ban deligates in elections.

[Technosoul]

Should our primary elections be won only by popular votes or should we keep the use of deligates as was advocated by the founding fathers?

The question concerns the next election and not the one currently underway.

If you prefer the option of "other" or "see comments" then vote "not sure".

[Kakumei]

At least get rid of the cheap 'super delegates' made by the Dems. lol.

[Technosoul]

I found out that fomer President Carter is a super deligate, I wonder how many people no longer directly involved in the workings of government are still able to pick a canidate for the next President?

I voted to just ban them all and go with the majority vote, however I can also understand that the "party leaders" should have some control to insure that someone radical is not running under their party name. There are triditional party platforms and idealologies that are involved in a party from a histroical perspective and 3rd party canidates should not sneak in under a party name just because only one of the two parties ever win.

(hope that is not too confusing?)

[GHook93]

The delegate system is stupid. Each state should be give a specific number of electoral votes similar to the general election. And please god get rid of the highly undemocratic super-delegate system! Possibly going against the will of the people for the Presidency should be a crime!

[Technosoul]

Quote by: GHook93 The delegate system is stupid. Each state should be give a specific number of electoral votes similar to the general election. And please god get rid of the highly undemocratic super-delegate system! Possibly going against the will of the people for the Presidency should be a crime!

Hmm? We agree on something at last. I think we could get support from both the major parties about this.

It should have been done 7 years ago in my opinion. And I also think that we should not rush such an important thing. The Supreme Court should not be allowed to determine an outcome (or lower courts). If the vote in a state is not clear due to some faults then that state will just have to pay to re-do the their primary or general elections, and every vote must be counted fairly, that must be funded by those responsible.
No more if, ands, or buts about it. Party rules or not each voter has a right to take part in this process. Everyone will just have to learn a little patience until we develope some fool proof voting machines.

[Tim]

I think that how a party chooses its candidate is its own business. If you feel they are cheating you, don't support them.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Tim I think that how a party chooses its candidate is its own business. If you feel they are cheating you, don't support them.

Unfortunately, though, these parties hold power. Thay makes them everybody's business. And, because I don't really support political parties, I hesitate to say a party should make its own decisions.

Granddpa h.

[Tim]

Quote by: grandpa Unfortunately, though, these parties hold power. Thay makes them everybody's business. And, because I don't really support political parties, I hesitate to say a party should make its own decisions. Granddpa h.

Ultimately, the only reason political parties hold power is because voters keep giving it to them. I agree that the superdelegate system in particular is not very democratic, but I think it is up to registered members of each party to effect change in their respective systems. I don't know that it should be up to the government to ban the practice.

I do support the cessation of providing public funds to candidates selected by undemocratic practices. I don't think that the government should be doing anything to uphold the two-party system.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Tim Ultimately, the only reason political parties hold power is because voters keep giving it to them. I agree that the superdelegate system in particular is not very democratic, but I think it is up to registered members of each party to effect change in their respective systems.

That's why, if we want to avoid widening the political divide, we should stop giving power to political parties. Superdelegates were supposedly designed "to prevent early dominance by a weak candidate" (Superdelegates: Who are they? Why do they matter so much this year? - UB NewsCenter), but, in my view, there really shouldn't be dominance by any candidate. In fact, I'd say there shouldn't be any candidates. We've seen politicians come in and demonstrate their reliability, mostly with negative consequences.

Grandpa h.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Technosoul Hmm? We agree on something at last. I think we could get support from both the major parties about this. It should have been done 7 years ago in my opinion. And I also think that we should not rush such an important thing. The Supreme Court should not be allowed to determine an outcome (or lower courts). If the vote in a state is not clear due to some faults then that state will just have to pay to re-do the their primary or general elections, and every vote must be counted fairly, that must be funded by those responsible. No more if, ands, or buts about it. Party rules or not each voter has a right to take part in this process. Everyone will just have to learn a little patience until we develope some fool proof voting machines.

Also there should be one primary day. That way the candidates don't have to pander their message to every state and they can have one united message. It would curb the amount of money they spend (waste)! It would give more candidates viable chances of winning.

[Tim]

Quote by: grandpa That's why, if we want to avoid widening the political divide, we should stop giving power to political parties. In fact, I'd say there shouldn't be any candidates. We've seen politicians come in and demonstrate their reliability, mostly with negative consequences.

I agree with your first point. I generally vote for independents or candidates from smaller parties when I have the opportunity, simply to try to encourage more diversity in the options we're faced with.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second point. Do you mean that political parties shouldn't select one candidate to run?

[Tim]

Quote by: GHook93 Also there should be one primary day. That way the candidates don't have to pander their message to every state and they can have one united message. It would curb the amount of money they spend (waste)! It would give more candidates viable chances of winning.

I like this idea. It would also prevent situations like the one the democrats are facing this year. I am sick to death of the way this process has been dragging on for them.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Tim I agree with your first point. I generally vote for independents or candidates from smaller parties when I have the opportunity, simply to try to encourage more diversity in the options we're faced with.

Well, that's understandable. But my crucial point was against electing leaders in general. In order to do something, we shouldn't "need to get a dem elected first," or what have you. If we're faced with problems, why do we need George W. Bush or some other idiot to address them? I'm disgusted by this terrible idea that things are better in the hands of bureaucratic elites. And those coming into the
field tend to leave things worse off anyway.

Grandpa h.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Tim I like this idea. It would also prevent situations like the one the democrats are facing this year. I am sick to death of the way this process has been dragging on for them.

One thing I hate about the process is that Iowa and NH determine how a candidate is going to start out his campaign, so if a Republican candidate like Guiliani chooses not to try to pander to the extreme social conservatives, then he is toast before he can make a run at the middle leaning Republicans!

[Chancellor]

Why the hell can't the political parties determine for themselves how they're going to choose their nominees????? Who the hell do you people think you are to try to dictate to the political parties how they're going to select their nominees???? Are you actively involved in these parties? If not, then just shut the hell up about it and mind your own damned business!

[Jack]

Yeah, how dare you voice your opinion of how your elected officials are chosen. You should just take what the power brokers decide is good for you. What, you think you have the freedom of expression or something?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: GHook93 Also there should be one primary day. That way the candidates don't have to pander their message to every state and they can have one united message. It would curb the amount of money they spend (waste)! It would give more candidates viable chances of winning.

I agree, they can spend as much time visiting the states but the primary should be nation wide all at once, a least within a one week time span.

For example California has become unimportant because by the time we hold our pimary the other states have pretty much determined who it will be. A few states should not determine the winner.

The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are private associations. They should be able to choose their candidates however they want: delegate selection, flip a coin, sold to the highest bidder, a mud wrestling match. Voters get to decide on the candidates--and to some extent the merits of the selection process--in elections.

It is true that the two major U.S. parties have effectively destroyed representative democracy in America and sold it to corporate, military, and religious interests, but that's another issue.

Then again, American citizens are probably getting the quality of government and politicians they deserve. Not enough of them seem concerned enough to do much about it. They're certainly not taking to the streets as happens in other countries when the electoral system is compromised.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Technosoul Hmm? We agree on something at last. I think we could get support from both the major parties about this.

Common talk about some social issues, abortion, gay marriage, prostitution, the war on drugs etc. You will see I am very liberal there.

[lsbskins1]

If either Obama or Clinton had dominated the race, the Super Delegates would not matter one little lick. This is so silly, really. I keep hearing all of these Obama supporters talking about how Hillary can't win enough delegates to overtake Obama, and if the Super Delegates "give it to her" it will be tragic. Well Obama can't win enough delegates to overtake Clinton, either. Absent the Super Delegates, he ain't got enough to secure the nomination. Look at the math BOTH WAYS.

And I didn't hear anyone bitchin about Super Delegates when the idea was that Obama's momentum was so strong, they would swing his way and it would then be over. Obama wants the popular vote to matter, as long as he gets to insist that Florida and Michigan be excluded "because those were the rules from the beginning". Well, the Super Delegates were part of the same "beginning rules". It is what it is. This is what I say...if Obama wins, Obama wins. If Clinton wins, Clinton wins. Support whoever gets the nomination of the party, because their policy positions are almost identical.

If you hate Democrats, vote for McCain. If you hate Republicans and Democrats, vote for your Mother. My personal opinion is that the democrats screwed themselves with the proportional distribution of delegates, trying to erase the memory of Gore's loss to Bush. The general election is gonna be winner take all, if we had gone with that format in the primaries, it would be over now. Our stupid bad. But don't bitch if the Big Wigs do what the Big Wigs were empowered to do from the beginning if no one candidate was able to capture enough little "d" delegates to win outright. It is what it is.