Comments on: Yes to delegates, no to democracy…new lessons from Iowa

By: lasthorseman

lasthorseman — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

So as such I have seen at least several pResidential selection processes. This does appear to be the first one adding the term "superdelegate".

p>I am left to assume it is a new New World Order mandate or some part of the secret government interests like torture, habeas corpus, wiretapping and microchipping the world and increasing government intrusion into you private life.

By: sabutai

sabutai — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Superdelegates have been around for decades...the race was never close enough to matter until now. Your conspiracy theory doesn't check out on this one. Sorry.

p>(Unless I'm part of the conspiracy, say a Level 16-B agent of the Illuminati detailed to lead Internet investigators who have reached threat level Orange in North America Region VII astray. If such agent were to identify the true plans of the Bilderberg Group in this Phase Epsilon of the Global Initiative, the Trilateral Commission would be furious and would probably order an Operation 031.0)

By: laurel

laurel — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

myself that assigned delegates are free to ignore their assignments. personally, i wouldn't be caught dead doing that. i promised my neighbors to be a clinton delegate, and so i will. if for some reason i no longer wish to support clinton when our legislative district caucus rolls around, it is up to the backup delegate to take my place (and up to me on my honor to inform her and the district dems that i'm not showing).

p>caucuses are not democratic. they are democraticalish.

By: troll22

troll22 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

What? People chose to support a candidate still in the race rather than one who dropped out months ago? Oh the iniquity! The sacred WILL OF THE PEOPLE has been violated! Will the Republic survive?

By: laurel

laurel — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

This is interesting. Apparently a law passed in WA in 2004 saying that WA would use an "open primary system that allows the top two vote-getters to advance to the general election, even if they are from the same party." The system hasn't been used yet because the law has been under judicial review all this time.

p>The law was contested all the way up to the SCOTUS, which just ruled 7-2 in its favor.

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that overturning Washington's plan would have been an "extraordinary and precipitous nullification of the will of the people."
In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said Washington's system would cause a political party to be associated with candidates who may not represent its views. Scalia was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy...
The top-two plan was created after state voters approved a law in 2004 allowing them to pick their favorite candidate for each office...The major parties challenged the law in federal court, asserting a First Amendment right to select their own nominees without outside interference.
Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna argued there was no evidence that the parties would be harmed, since they can publicize through advertising and other means which candidates they support.

By: peter-porcupine

peter-porcupine — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

By: alice-in-florida

alice-in-florida — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

which I look forward to reading. On the face of it, though, it is clearly a repudiation of the notion that the parties have any kind of constitutionally-recognized status. In a way, this kind of echoes the declarations of those such as Gore Vidal, that we do not have two parties, we have one party (the capitalist party) with two wings–Democratic and Republican. It certainly does undercut the authority claimed by party leadership, and may lead to more states undertaking this kind of thing….I’m guessing most Americans are not real fond of partisanship, whichever party they may belong to.

By: laurel

laurel — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

is that some hideous bozo will make it to the general election via this new system, there will be major voters' remorse, and the law will be repealed. WA has a history of passing ill-conceived voter referenda that eventually get trashed because they are later found to be unconstitutional, or they have unexpected negative consequences that the voters didn't anticipate.

p>as for the capitalist party, that is what this new scheme will enhance. pundits in WA anticipate that the parties will now have to spend a lot more $$$ on adverts, etc just to be sure that voters know who they actually back.

By: cos

cos — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I'd like to see state Democratic parties in states that select delegates by caucus start reforming their rules such that pledged delegates actually are pledged to vote for their candidate on the equivalent of the "first ballot". If a precinct delegate gets to the county caucus to find that their candidate doesn't meet threshold in their county, then they could choose another. Or, if their candidate actually dropped out.

p>I also think if a candidate suspends their campaign and officially endorses another candidate, pledged delegates should be allowed to switch to the endorsed candidate without penalty.