Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dutchling]

Spoiler: no comment (click to show/hide)

[Helgoland]

I don't get it.

[SalmonGod]

If this does come down to the superdelegates deciding the candidate, I think I will find it very hard to give a fuck about a national election ever again.  For all the cynicism I spew, I have tried to be engaged, even when it feels pointless or leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  But that would just be it for me.

My main criticism of voting has always been that it's not a real choice if I'm forced to select between options that are hand-picked for me, but there's always been a part of me willing to believe that it's less an issue with the process and more that feeling like there's a lack of choices is a natural consequence of being too radical.  But if a candidate I was ok with who actually had a chance got shot down in the primary by an establishment process in spite of popular support, that part of me would disappear.

This would explain everything as I am a relentless hater of the presidential system and greatly favor parliamentarianism.

Yeah, but the upside of parliamentarianism is it's supposed to offer greater variety and proportionality of representation, right?  The superdelegates thing seems like it goes the exact opposite direction.

[mainiac]

Parlimentarianism is you chose a party on the basis of a platform and the party goes from there.  Superdelegates are people voted for democrats who became superdelegates and those superdelegates go from there.  It's hardly the platonic form of parlimentarianism but given that I'm hugely biased in favor of the system I'll overlook those flaws.

It doesn't seem very parlimentary, does it.  Maybe adding whigs will help?

[Helgoland]

This would explain everything as I am a relentless hater of the presidential system and greatly favor parliamentarianism.

Yeah, but the upside of parliamentarianism is it's supposed to offer greater variety and proportionality of representation, right?  The superdelegates thing seems like it goes the exact opposite direction.

Naah. Look at the UK: Their parliamentary system is designed to keep out smaller parties just like the US one is, albeit less extremely so. The main appeal of parliamentarism is that it involves more people in the decision-making process, making it less dependant on the whims of a single guy who happened to win an election and more aligned with the collective's will.

For greater variety and proportionality of representation you need the additional condition of proportional representation. Combine that with local representation à la Bundestag and a threshold of about 5% and you've got a pretty much ideal system.

[Wolfhunter107]

The superdelegates exist to prevent unelectable candidates from being elected. This election is a pretty good example of why they they were introduced, though I suspect it will be a moot point, given that Sanders has probably passed his high water mark.

[RedKing]

Salmongod, not sure if you realize, but those superdelegates can change sides at any time up to the convention, meaning, it's not fixed.

Yeah, I get that.  How often do they switch on their pledges, historically?

I can't seem to get to anywhere past 2008, but the whole migrations of the delegates in 2008 should give you an idea.

From the info I can find, 98 superdelegates switched from Clinton to Obama, out of 852 total. And almost the entire 98 were either Governors or members of Congress -- i.e. people who would have to work with Obama, and thus have a vested interest in currying favor. Only about 10-12 DNC members changed their vote, and indeed the DNC was the single largest bloc of remaining Clinton superdelegates at the convention. And 50 of that 98 changed only when Obama got the majority needed to win.

The DNC makes up roughly half the superdelegates, with the other largest blocs coming from sitting Dem governors, Dem Senators and Dem Representatives. Labor, Media, and DPL (Distinguished Party Leaders) are a relatively small portion of the total.

The superdelegates exist to prevent unelectable candidates from being elected.

That seems like a tautology. That's like saying that abortion exists to kill off future Hitler. If someone points out that there hasn't been another Hitler, "well, that's proof that it's working!"

[Powder Miner]

Parliamentary systems make it a whole heck of a lot harder to run for office: they tend to have much MUCH stronger control over their party members than american parties do: in the United States, you can run as a Democrat even if the Democrats despise you and would literally rather eat their own children than see you elected. They can't actually stop you, in that respect. But in the majority of parliamentary systems, this is simply not the case because by their very definition the parties there have to have a lot more of a centralized process because candidates are voted in on party, whereas the parties here are, despite the Krazy Kongress Karousel, actually pretty weak. So you have to ASK parties to run under them in the majority of parliamentary systems, and I'm not particularly comfortable with giving parties that much power. I also don't like the idea of "the collective's will" since there isn't really so much of a thing as a united collective as there are a SLEW of individual people, whose beliefs sometimes match but sometimes definitely do not.

Plus parliamentary systems have that extra little merging of executive and legislative stuff, which I don't like. muh separation of branches

[Helgoland]

Well, there's 'collective will' as a thing that simply exists (à la Rousseau), and there's 'collective will' as something that is created in a political process (à la English-style parliamentarism). I hate the former and have a burning passion for the latter.

Funnily enough 'the creation of a collective will' is a pretty workable definition of politics - at least from the point of view of the entity the process is taking place inside of, e.g. the state or the party.

[smjjames]

The superdelegates exist to prevent unelectable candidates from being elected.

That seems like a tautology. That's like saying that abortion exists to kill off future Hitler. If someone points out that there hasn't been another Hitler, "well, that's proof that it's working!"

From what I understand, it's supposed to prevent the kind of clusterfuck that happened at the 1968 democratic convention.

While it's still cool to cheer for the underdog that Sanders is, I don't see him pulling off NH's with the rest of the states. But anything could happen really.

[Loud Whispers]

Naah. Look at the UK: Their parliamentary system is designed to keep out smaller parties just like the US one is, albeit less extremely so.

Just saying this is not an accurate description, some small parties actually gain loads of power they would never get in a directly proportional system whilst others get almost no power, see our Libdems and regional parties vs Greens and UKIP

[RedKing]

The superdelegates exist to prevent unelectable candidates from being elected.

That seems like a tautology. That's like saying that abortion exists to kill off future Hitler. If someone points out that there hasn't been another Hitler, "well, that's proof that it's working!"

From what I understand, it's supposed to prevent the kind of clusterfuck that happened at the 1968 democratic convention.

Meh. It's certainly given us "electable" candidates like Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis.

And ironically, the clusterfuck at the '68 convention was created PRECISELY because of party machinery working in backrooms to put their guy in, despite the fact that Humphrey hadn't even fucking campaigned in a primary. (Also because the anti-war movement was split between Kennedy -- who was dead at that point; McCarthy, and McGovern.)

And actually, it wasn't created after '68. It was created in 1982, as a response to the fact that the party elders felt like they hold lost too much control (the elections from 1972-1980 being relatively free of internal horsetrading) and wanted a way to control things again. They initially wanted 30% of all delegates to be superdelegates, but settled on 14%, a number which has steadily crept upwards.

In 1984, Mondale and Hart were nearly tied in the primary vote, but Mondale won the superdelegates and the nomination. And then got steamrolled by Ronald Reagan in one the most lopsided electoral victories in American history. So yeah, that whole "keeping unelectable candidates out" thing is grade-A USDA-certified bullshit.

[mainiac]

The UK is annoying because it is the namesake of the system but a horrible implementation.

From what I understand, it's supposed to prevent the kind of clusterfuck that happened at the 1968 democratic convention.

Or the clusterfuck that is going to ensue when Trump wins the nomination.

The reforms happened right after the McGovern and Goldwater campaigns which were supposed to be the examples of unelectable candidates winning the base.  Trump would make those guys look like FDR and Eisenhower.

[sluissa]

So, I officially put in my change of party paperwork this morning... I'm now a democrat... I feel dirty but at least I'll get to vote in a primary this cycle.

[redwallzyl]

So, I officially put in my change of party paperwork this morning... I'm now a democrat... I feel dirty but at least I'll get to vote in a primary this cycle.

ONE OF US

ONE OF US

ONE OF US

ONE OF US