Comments on: Superdelegates Aren’t the Main Problem http://donklephant.com/2008/03/07/superdelegates-arent-the-main-problem/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:12:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: kritter http://donklephant.com/2008/03/07/superdelegates-arent-the-main-problem/#comment-393239 kritter Sun, 09 Mar 2008 04:47:51 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2008/03/07/superdelegates-arent-the-main-problem/#comment-393239 Time to start working on that list of Top 10 reasons why the nominee-choosing process SUCKS. I could rattle off 5 or 6 without even a brief pause. :-) <blockquote>This ends any argument or pretense that there is any connection whatsoever between pledged delegates and the “will of the voter”. Full stop.</blockquote> It's nice to believe that. But it's silly, because it presumes that more people understand caucuses than have blank expressions when they are mentioned. I think that somewhere between 80 and 95% of Americans have no clue about how baroque the process is. If you take the time to explain it to them, most will ask something along the lines of "why don't THEY fix it so it's more uniform and representative?" And the answer is that there is no "they" to do it. It is, as wj suggests, a matter for each state individually. When the convention rolls around, most people will latch onto the score of regular delegates going into the convention as the most legitimate tally, because they were the result of some sort of organized voting process. You can argue they'll be wrong, but that's what they'll think. And they'll all view an overturning of that tally by hand-picked party insiders as a bag job. That party insiders may have dictated caucus results will be neither here nor there. Count on it. Double full stop, Time to start working on that list of Top 10 reasons why the nominee-choosing process SUCKS. I could rattle off 5 or 6 without even a brief pause. :-)

This ends any argument or pretense that there is any connection whatsoever between pledged delegates and the “will of the voter”. Full stop.

It’s nice to believe that. But it’s silly, because it presumes that more people understand caucuses than have blank expressions when they are mentioned.

I think that somewhere between 80 and 95% of Americans have no clue about how baroque the process is. If you take the time to explain it to them, most will ask something along the lines of “why don’t THEY fix it so it’s more uniform and representative?” And the answer is that there is no “they” to do it. It is, as wj suggests, a matter for each state individually.

When the convention rolls around, most people will latch onto the score of regular delegates going into the convention as the most legitimate tally, because they were the result of some sort of organized voting process. You can argue they’ll be wrong, but that’s what they’ll think. And they’ll all view an overturning of that tally by hand-picked party insiders as a bag job.

That party insiders may have dictated caucus results will be neither here nor there. Count on it. Double full stop,

]]> By: wj http://donklephant.com/2008/03/07/superdelegates-arent-the-main-problem/#comment-393157 wj Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:04:04 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2008/03/07/superdelegates-arent-the-main-problem/#comment-393157 Is the problem with the Democratic party? Or do the states decide how they will do the primaries? I seem to recall that in Iowa, for example, both parties do caucuses, because that's the way Iowa has set things up. That being the case, it would seem to be up to the voters in the caucus states to make a change, if they feel disenfranchised. Is the problem with the Democratic party? Or do the states decide how they will do the primaries? I seem to recall that in Iowa, for example, both parties do caucuses, because that’s the way Iowa has set things up.

That being the case, it would seem to be up to the voters in the caucus states to make a change, if they feel disenfranchised.

]]> By: mw http://donklephant.com/2008/03/07/superdelegates-arent-the-main-problem/#comment-393110 mw Sat, 08 Mar 2008 05:53:30 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2008/03/07/superdelegates-arent-the-main-problem/#comment-393110 Exactly. The oddest of all the oddities of this campaign season, is Obama supporters holding up the Texas delegate result as if it was a grass roots victory in Texas. There was a real vote in Texas. Real voters went into real voting booths and voted for their preference. That is what most people would consider "the will of the voters". Clinton won that vote. Yet - due to the caucuses Obama will get more delegates out of Texas than Clinton. This ends any argument or pretense that there is any connection whatsoever between pledged delegates and the "will of the voter". Full stop. Exactly. The oddest of all the oddities of this campaign season, is Obama supporters holding up the Texas delegate result as if it was a grass roots victory in Texas. There was a real vote in Texas. Real voters went into real voting booths and voted for their preference. That is what most people would consider “the will of the voters”. Clinton won that vote. Yet - due to the caucuses Obama will get more delegates out of Texas than Clinton. This ends any argument or pretense that there is any connection whatsoever between pledged delegates and the “will of the voter”. Full stop.

]]>