Why? Because you support Hillary and we so no logical reason to do so at this point. It is the same reason why Hillary supporters say we are all "Obama-bots." It doesn't matter if we supported, as I did, Edwards at first and even if we then were leaning towards Hillary when Edwards first dropped out. At any rate, that is just something to say to piss people off on both sides ;)
As far as the process goes, I agree that they have to do something to shorten the amount of time between the first and last primaries. I don't think it's necessary to do away with caucuses, they are just as democratic if not more so because the results of caucuses are more open and less subject to mechanical issues. But that's a smaller issue, you say we should do away with super-delegates (admirable view, considering they are the only way your candidate could win). I think they just need to restructure things a bit.
How about making it so elected delegates HAVE to vote for the person they were selected for, and can only switch if the candidate releases them? As for superdelegates, the idea is sound. What if some disastrous thing were to happen to the candidate, or some absolutely shocking revelation about them were to come out? We may not still want to run that candidate even though we voted for him/her (though the judgment of party leaders on what constitutes "shocking" I don't have much faith in). But... it should be that the "magic" number of delegates should be determined
only by elected delegates. A candidate who wins the majority of elected delegates is the nominee. The only role for superdelegates would be if they want to
disqualify the nominee at the convention. It should be worded that way too. To actually come out in the convention and disqualify the nominee of the party would take one hell of a revelation, imo.
by
Weapon X on
05/11/2008 05:08:31 PM EST
[
Parent ]
