Democrats, Just Not So Democratic

One really must stop and appreciate this bit of irony, especially with Reid, Pelosi and Dean threatening to weigh in on the candidate selection. I should say: light-weight in. But I digress.

No matter how you slice it, what is now a fact, is that, the party that calls itself the "Democratic" party is going to nominate a candidate this year through a very "undemocratic" process. No other solution is possible. The so-called Super Delegates get to pick the Dem's candidate, thereby telling the great unwashed (IE: liberals) who to support.

Neither candidate can win through the primary process. And Hillary may even win the popular vote. Gee, according to "We want Gore rules," doesn't that mean she gets the nod? After all, this delegate business is very much like an electoral college.

Nothing could be more telling as regards the Democrat Party today, as well as the contemporary liberal's mindset, than that some central committee gets to tell the happy hamsters that make up the rank and file who wins.

LOL All the more reason to label it the Democrat Party, as opposed to the misnomer they prefer.

Actually, they should place a "U" by their names this year for "undemocratic." They designed this silly process. Or maybe the U just stands for Unfit to govern America as a President.

Comments

[IslamoLlama]

*raises hand*

So, if the Super Delegates oppose the popular vote and the winner of the most elected delegates - Clinton, the woman you support for Democratic Nominee - then they are being undemocratic by overturning the will of the majority.

But if they side with Obama, they're being foolish and setting themselves up to lose the election on November because Obama is "unelectable".

Because the Super Delegate system exists, one candidate would have to win a landslide - rather than slugging it out from state to state straight into June - to claim the 2000+ delegates needed for victory. This makes the system less Democratic... how?

Tell me something, Dan. If our system is so unDemocratic, then why do Pennsylvania Democrats turn out in droves? Why aren't GOP voters voting for their candidate of choice, if states like Indiana and North Carolina are so included in the Republican nomination process. As far as I can tell, every GOP voter since Texas has been effectively disenfranchised. I agree that the current nomination process feels silly and archaic. I don't understand how this is some horrible black mark against the party. So far we're looking at better turnout, better fund raising, more media exposure, and more aggressive campaigning than the party has seen since 1968. When did this become a bad thing?

Oh, right! You're a Republican! For someone cheer leading McCain for Prez in '08, this must be painful to watch. This is going to be a painful year for you, Dan.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"As far as I can tell, every GOP voter since Texas has been effectively disenfranchised."

I'm in agreement here but ask; what should either party do (as postions could have been reversed) when there is only one candidate still in the race? Should the GOP have told the Huckster or Romulus that they could not drop out? Appointed someone? The question of whether the other supers will withhold their votes in favor of the popular vote is still hovering. The majority of NC supers said just that. They will wait for the outcome on 6 May.

[joeb]

I agree with Dan. How can a party with "Super Delegates" be democratic in any way? "Central Committee" sounds like something from Russia in the bad old days.

[seekeronos]

I think that the Dems need to go back to using a "winner-take-all" system of awarding delegates like us 'Pubbies do.

Because I don't ever see the 'Pubbies ever giving up the advantage that WTA gives us in terms of eliminating the candidates unwanted by The Machine™.

If we had had to suffer through the woefully long process of proportional delegation, who knows... maybe Mitt Romney and the Huckster might still be in the race.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- what should either party do (as postions could have been reversed) when there is only one candidate still in the race? Should the GOP have told the Huckster or Romulus that they could not drop out? Appointed someone? --"

We could have simultaneous primaries. Just run all the primaries at once, like a national election. Crazy, I know, but it might be worth considering.

"-- I agree with Dan. How can a party with "Super Delegates" be democratic in any way? "Central Committee" sounds like something from Russia in the bad old days. --"

You could say the same thing about the electoral college in general. Is it worth mentioning that Prime Ministers in England, France, and Germany are elected not by the popular vote but by the vote of Parliament? And since the Super Delegates are largely people from elected office, am I missing a difference here?

"-- I think that the Dems need to go back to using a "winner-take-all" system of awarding delegates like us 'Pubbies do. --"

If only the Democrats were just like the Republicans, they'd be doing so much better as a party!

Roflmao

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"We could have simultaneous primaries."
I can agree with that. Usually by this point in the primaries my vote is useless.

"If only the Democrats were just like the Republicans, they'd be doing so much better as a party!"
We could also go back to naming the "runner up" Vice president.

BTW: In future, when you're replying to multiple posts please be kind enough to seperate whose is whose.

[seekeronos]

"--- We could also go back to naming the "runner up" Vice president. ---"

And having the legislatures of the many states chuse (sic) our U.S. Senators.

[scarshapedstar]

Actually, the "unelected Senator" system wasn't such a bad idea, because it gave the state governments a voice.

[seekeronos]

"--- Actually, the "unelected Senator" system wasn't such a bad idea, because it gave the state governments a voice. ---"

Scar, that is about the wisest thing I have heard you say here on RWV.

And I mean that.

After all, the Constitution was built for the many United *States*, and served to frame a compact with which those states could function as a federal republic.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

"After all, this delegate business is very much like an electoral college."

Or, more accurately, it's NOTHING like the electoral college, in that the superdelegates are all elected officials ultimately responsible to the voters - none of whom being powerful enough to sway the others, as evidenced by Dean, Nancy, and Reid all stumbling around in the dark trying to end this thing. Why do you think a great many of them are dragging their feet with respect to which candidate to support? They just can't make a decision on how to be un-democratic enough? Really? The supers reflect the makeup of Dem voters - divided pretty much right down the line.

Democrats are far too feckless and unorganized to be anti-democratic. They have neither the inclination or ability to exercise power in a manner necessary to do ANYTHING, much less take away your guns and Bibles. Seriously, it's not difficult to figure out.

[IslamoLlama]

Willie -

"-- We could also go back to naming the "runner up" Vice president. --"

I'd be fine with that.

"-- BTW: In future, when you're replying to multiple posts please be kind enough to seperate whose is whose. --"

Noted.

Scar -

"- Actually, the "unelected Senator" system wasn't such a bad idea, because it gave the state governments a voice. --"

The state governments ARE a voice. They don't need to have another voice. If you really like your State House Speaker, I can see how an unelected Senator system sounds good. But any time I hear "unelected", all I can think of is "crony".

All that said, I wouldn't mind forcing politicians to pass the state bar or otherwise have some sort of legal license and expertise before they assume office. I'm getting really tired of watching Congresscritters - both state and federal - spout off without actually knowing basic civics. Watching people argue for laws already on the books or laws that have already been struck down as unconstitutional is rather exhausting and pathetic.

[templar knight]

Hmm...having lawyers make all the laws, eh? Very elistist of you, Mo. That would exclude something like 99% of all Americans from being able to hold office.

[tally]

http://www.recreate68.org/album1_dnc_001.htm

[tally]

http://coffeehousestudio.blogspot.com/2008/01/re-create-68.html

[seekeronos]

"--- All that said, I wouldn't mind forcing politicians to pass the state bar or otherwise have some sort of legal license and expertise before they assume office. ---"

Really? Lawyers?

Wouldn't that *guarantee* that only dirtbags were the only people allowed to hold office? I mean, that would be great for folks like "Mike 'the Pit Bull' Roslowski", you know -- that personal injury attorney who shells out a cool half million to get his full colour back cover of the phone book advert with the "snarling pit bull that fights for YOU!" ... if such like him have congressional or Presidential dreams.

I thought a more Heinleinish system of requiring all office holders to be prior enlisted military veterans would be much more workable.

I'd say letting only born-again, fundamentalist, baptized Bible believing Christian veterans as well, but that would break that pesky Constitutional bar against religious tests as a precondition for public office.

[Yoda]

"Watching people argue for laws already on the books or laws that have already been struck down as unconstitutional is rather exhausting and pathetic."

Retards exposing themselves as retarded is entertaining.

[tally]

http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-sent-obama.html