This is from an e-mail I wrote in response to THIS PETITION
"I don't know about this. While I do agree that the delegates should follow the electorate, I don't think that there's anything actually wrong with them not doing so. The primary process isn't designed as an election. The process is for the democratic party to decide on their nominee, and since the democratic party isn't actually a government entity it doesn't make sense that it should be force to follow the results of an election it hasn't agreed to bind itself too. The superdelegate situation originally emerged because the party was worried that it might need to have a say in the result of a contested primary election process (which itself only began in the early '50s), and they might need to make an "executive decision" on who the candidate should be. When you consider that in many states you don't have to be a registered democrat to even vote in the democratic primaries, it doesn't make much sense to me that the democratic party should then be forced to follow the results of that primary. I still agree that they should honor the results of the elections with ALL of the delegates, but I disagree with the premise that it would be the fair democratic thing for them to do. I also don't feel that they should feel obligated to do so."
I'm just wondering, am I wrong about this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You don't have to be a registered Democrat to vote for one in the general elections either. Just because somebody isn't on the DP's voter roll does not make their opinion about who should be president any less valid, even in the primaries.
Well that's a separate point. Obviously every American has a right to vote on who will be president and should be allowed to vote for whoever they damn well please. That's for the general election though, since every one of us is a citizen of the country and as such a member of the body that those candidates are running to represent. But why should I have a say in who the republican candidate should be? I'm not a republican, I'm not going to vote for one. Why should I have the option of voting for a weaker candidate or trying to make their primary closer to hurt their chances in the general election? I'm not a member of the body that is choosing who their candidate will be, and their candidate will not represent me so why should I want to vote for them? It's not an issue of whose opinion is valid. It's an issue of whose opinion is relevant. I can't go vote in another state, even if I really want a certain person to be elected. I would have loved to go vote for Al Franken in Minnesota, but I'm not a member of the body that he would be representing and so my opinion is excluded. To me the two scenarios are the same, but I get the sense that most people would disagree.
Rich, I agree with you. There would be nothing "wrong" with them going against the will of the majority of the pledged delegates.
However, I think if they did that, there would be some very angry Democratic voters. I would be one of them, if Barack won the most pledged delegates. I mean, we did all this work, technically won the primaries, and now it's something undemocratic (little d) that will decide the nominee? But it's indirectly democratic, since most of the superdelegates are elected (members of Congress, governors). And to get elected, they had to have won their party's primary for their seat.
I signed the petition, however, because MoveOn.org is trying to get Obama elected, and they're pretty good at what they do, so I trust that this petition is more likely to get Obama elected than not, and therefore from a pragmatic perspective worth signing IMO.
I would say that we should not be even having this discussion because the primary system is so ridiculously fucked up that it just shouldn't be this way, however, I also see merit in the argument that maybe people from outside would screw with the voting to try to get a weaker candidate elected (this is especially possible when only one party's nomination is contested), so maybe it's not fucked up in an entirely bad way.
Anyway, if Barack had won more pledged delegates, we wouldn't be worried about what the superdelegates will do. And there is a great deal of pressure on the superdelegates to follow the will of their constituents.
So in conclusion, it wouldn't be wrong, but it would piss me off if it meant Obama wasn't the nominee.
Post a Comment