Promoting democracy in Utah one pint at a time.
Promoting democracy in Utah one pint at a time.
As I understand it, I think the Democratic super delegates is a rather good idea. I think of them as a mini-Congress. In a close primary like we have seen, the person who is best able to pursuade the super delegates to vote for them is also more likely to get Congress to accomplish something. If Obama can in fact get the super delegates on his side then fine, but I think that will prove to be a bigger test for him. I’m happy that the Dems do not have a winner-take-all system at the Republicans do. If they did, then Obama’s many small wins would still not equal Clinton’s larger state wins and the super delegates wouldn’t matter either. It is a system that may seem dumb but actually adds another check and balance to the larger picture.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[powered by WordPress.]
Welcome to Drinking Liberally Salt Lake City. We meet at 6:30 p.m. every Friday in the back room of Piper Down [Map] and go to 9:30. All are welcome.
30 queries. 0.326 seconds
February 28th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Interesting take, Lucky Dingo. However, it is this exact “persuasion” for votes that bothers me the most about the super delegates. I just read (will have to find the reference – unless anyone else has it??) about the financial contributions made by the presidential hopefuls to some super delegate campaigns from their election runs several years ago. Is the return favor expected now?
This lobbying, if you will, for select votes is happening now. This worries me the most. It is this practice of I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine that is one of the biggest problems with congress now. Should it really begin before the candidate is even elected into office?
February 29th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Backscratching is only “bad” if your team isn’t doing the scratching. It is the very foundation of all political systems
worldwide since the dawn of humanity. It is the point of politics, and to assume the Democratic party should be void of
the engine which drives the system is pointless. Rather, they have opted to install a plan to test the persuasive abilities
of their presidential candidates by making them have to appeal not only to general voters but also to super delegates.
Who wants to elect a leader that can’t convince people to do things? Money talks. Power talks. Friends talk. We need to have
a President who has all of these in their court in order to be successful. Otherwise they have no leverage and they are like
Jimmy Carter who had a bad full of idealism but couldn’t even convince his own Democratic Congress to do what he wanted–
so guess what? Nothing happened for four years. Idealism is great, but show me the money!
February 29th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I don’t see how anyone would argue that a bunch of Washington insiders should have a far greater say over the Democratic nominee than the voters. The very idea goes against basic principles of Democracy.