Something we can all agree on??

Email Print posted by Weapon X 05/13/2008 01:44:20 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
A pledged delegate just switched from Clinton to Obama. Even though I’m an Obama supporter, it was a little disgusting to see this happen. I understood his reasoning and it made much more sense after reading the WaPo article. But to say it makes me uneasy is putting it mildly.

No matter what happens when this is all over, we need to pressure the DNC to fix this. And to do it in a way that will make it equitable to those of us who support the party and its candidates year after year.

The idea of super-delegates came from a valid concern. It shows good foresight to put into place some system to be able to correct a mistake, but I think we can all agree that such a measure should only be taken due to some truly disastrous occurrence for the nominee. Something that would pretty much cause most supporters of the nominee to essentially agree to a switch.

But a far more justifiable system would be to have the nominee be selected based entirely on elected delegates. There is also no reason elected delegates should be able to switch their vote once selected by the voters, unless the candidate releases them. Then, at the convention, the party elite (”super-delegates& ;quo t;) can basically ratify the presumptive nominee. If something disastrous had occurred between the elections and the convention, they could vote “nay” and reject the candidate, essentially “disqualifying” him/her.

This system wouldn’t interfere with the possibility of a brokered convention either. If a candidate hasn’t reached the number of elected delegates necessary to secure the nomination, the other candidates and elected delegates can still work it out. The party elite only ratifies/rejects the ultimate nominee.

An added bonus here is that it would take a truly earth-shattering revelation/misbehavior by the presumptive nominee for the party elite to actively “reject” the choice of rank-and-file Democrats.

< Darth Vader crushes Jedi | <snark> Lie berman: Hamas "endorses" Obama >

Poll

How would you address the issue of "What if there was a mistake made by the voters?"
Have the party elite "ratify" the presumptive nominee once selected by voters 33%
Keep the current system 16%
How the heck are these guys going to know what is a "mistake"? The nominee is the nominee, no "supers" should override 33%
Its a Democratic "Party" nominee, the party should decide, why are non-members even voting? Let it be decided by those in charge of the party. 16%

Votes: 6
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Something we can all agree on?? | 12 comments (12 topical, 0 hidden)
It's just simply a close race (none / 0)

I think that a great deal of this whole problem simply revolves around the fact that the race is fairly close.  Most electoral strategies start to fall apart when the race is very nearly evenly split.  About the only one that doesn't is a clear cut popular vote, which has it's own weaknesses. 

That being said I agree with what you're saying. 

by bfaul on 05/13/2008 02:11:45 PM EST

X, do you own a Wayback Machine? (none / 0)

"But a far more justifiable system would be to have the nominee be selected based entirely on elected delegates."

Yes, that is truly a great idea and pretty much the way the people who aren't quite as ravenous to grab power believe it should be.

Just like it was prior to 1972.

Before the "powers that be" decided that McGovern (who never did get sufficient party backing) was the "wrong choice" and used his defeat to create the unpledged delegates system so that THEY might make the decision of who should run, whether the voters liked it or not.

Yes, I fully agree with you that the system ought to be scrapped, with the exception of assigning ONE person (TBD) as a tie-breaker, should it ever come to that.

by MedfordTim on 05/13/2008 02:32:58 PM EST

Ahhh, the things I would do if I did have one (none / 0)
That's a good suggestion as an alternative to my "ratification" proposal. Though having just one person's judgment be superceding bothers me. But that's really why I made this post, so we could all agree on an initial premise (system f'd up and pledged delegate switching is wrong) and then talk about what would be better. The idea of having an emergency release button (that is what the superdelegates are kinda supposed to be) is good, but what form should that take, if any?

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 02:56:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This could use some paranoia (none / 0)

Time for a random conspiracy theory.

What if... the pledged delegate that switched sides from Clinton to Obama was actually a setup?

What if the Clinton campain actually ordered that guy to switch sides? This way they could argue that, since Obama *started* by "taking" her pledged delegates, she can now go ahead and take his pledged delegates in return, making her grab the nomination in the end after all!

It has some Gulf-of-Tonkin quality to it, no? 

Honestly, I don't believe a word of this. But I bet this theory will surface sooner rather than later, so I could just as well claim the fame for comming up with it. 

by Cogitor on 05/13/2008 06:04:31 PM EST

Actually credit where credit is due (none / 0)
That's a pretty good theory, Cognitor! I would certainly hope this is not the case but I wouldn't put it beyond the Hillary campaign. Not anymore.

I don't actually believe this, though. After reading the articles and background info it seems to be a genuine (if misguided) switch.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 06:10:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe its true (none / 0)

But if it is, its stupid.

SHE HAS LOST.  There is absolutely ZERO reward in leaving the winner to support the loser in a primary race.  What possible motivation does an Obama Super have to go to her?  None.

So now she can argue its morally ok.  Fine.  Who cares.  How is she going to argue it makes sense for them to do it.  She can't because it doesn't. 

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 06:34:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree, it won't happen (none / 0)

But it sure would make great television - except for the fact it would get John "Bomb *fill in blank here*" McCain elected.

That's probably not worth the entertainment value (it's really all she has left) Clinton still poses.

by Cogitor on 05/13/2008 07:04:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Remember though (none / 0)
The campaigns get to pick their own delegates.

Hillary would have to convince hardcore Obamabots to change sides.

Not Likely.

by richardshort2001 on 05/14/2008 12:47:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Remember though (none / 0)
The campaigns get to pick their own delegates.

Hillary would have to convince hardcore Obamabots to change sides.

Not Likely.

by richardshort2001 on 05/14/2008 12:47:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
oops (none / 0)

by richardshort2001 on 05/14/2008 12:47:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
X marks the spot (none / 0)
Our system is a clusterf"""& quot;

My solution is simple.

1) no caucuses, average Americans are not going to commit an entire evening to select a "primary" candidate.
2) a delegate system based simply on population (no more weighted districts)
3) No superdelegates
4) Only registered Dems can vote in a Dem primary
and
5) the manner in which the primaries are held.(see below)

The country should be split up into 5 regions based on geography & delegate count (10 states to each region).

1 State from each region will be selected in 10 seperate primaries held every 2 weeks

The winner of the popular vote wins.

by LORD FOUL on 05/14/2008 04:07:33 PM EST

Finally some real creativity! (none / 0)
Interesting ideas, Lord Foul. On the caucus thing, I disagree on two points:

1. average Americans don't commit to vote at all even when it takes a few minutes in most cases, and the people who vote in primaries are rarely much more than the very committed base. Even in this election, which has blown all previous primary turnouts out of the water, overall percentage of registered voters who turn out are embarrasingly small.

2. The caucus system on the whole turns out the most informed debate and the most informed voters. This is a party election and so this, unlike the actual Presidential election, can be justified in that we want our party's nominee selected by people who may be a bit more aware of what's going on. Only a few states use this system and those states are quite proud of this process.

Remember, Hillary supporters, Obama is not running in every election going forward. Don't judge caucuses just based on this one election. Your point that more people would show up if it wasn't a caucus is valid, though.

I really like your novel idea of regions, but I highly doubt it or a similar system would ever be seriously entertained, much less put into place. Still, as I said before, this is for a party nomination so who knows?

Thanks for the input.

by Weapon X on 05/14/2008 09:46:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Something we can all agree on?? | 12 comments (12 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: