Geraldine Ferraro: Superdelegates should ignore voters

O

Onceler

New member
I couldn't believe this article; here are some choice excerpts:

"the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.

If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate.

More important, although many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Using the same logic, you could say "let's just forego the primary process altogether, and let the Supers decide it, because the primaries are such a flawed system." For that matter, you could bag the general election (hey, turnout is low anyway, so it's not really representative), and leave the choice of President up to Congress & local officials.

She's a tad biased, though; the SD idea was her baby...
 
It sounds like spin to me too.

But, it raises an interesting question. Have the majority of Democrats actually voted for Obama? Or, is he over the top in the popular vote due to independents and republicans voting in open primaries?
 
Honestly, I don't particularly have anything against the convention system. Primaries are flawed in the fact that very few do turn out to vote, and it's considered a superflous election by about 70% or so of Americans. But if you have primaries, don't invent a complicated system to try and make them useless.

And convention may not make better selections in any case.
 
Watermark said:
Honestly, I don't particularly have anything against the convention system. Primaries are flawed in the fact that very few do turn out to vote, and it's considered a superflous election by about 70% or so of Americans. But if you have primaries, don't invent a complicated system to try and make them useless.

And convention may not make better selections in any case.
Click to expand...
You don't have to invent a complicated system. They are relatively useless as is.
 
Cypress said:
It sounds like spin to me too.

But, it raises an interesting question. Have the majority of Democrats actually voted for Obama? Or, is he over the top in the popular vote due to independents and republicans voting in open primaries?
Click to expand...

hes winning every group. so take your pick on that question. Think the answer is Yes and Yes.
 
If I were a Superdelegate I'd vote how I wanted. That is what I was elected to that position for.
 
Cypress said:
It sounds like spin to me too.

But, it raises an interesting question. Have the majority of Democrats actually voted for Obama? Or, is he over the top in the popular vote due to independents and republicans voting in open primaries?
Click to expand...

I’m just wondering, what difference does it make? I believe he has won among registered democrats in the last several primaries, but, why is this the first year that I can recall anyone bringing this up?
 
Darla said:
I’m just wondering, what difference does it make? I believe he has won among registered democrats in the last several primaries, but, why is this the first year that I can recall anyone bringing this up?
Click to expand...

Because an uppity n..... who didn't rise as a result of the Democratic machine and is not beholdin' to them may win the nomination. He's off the plantation, not under their control, and that is unacceptable to the Dems.

Dems think blacks are all fine and dandy as long as they stay in the system as good little toadies and vote in a monolithic non-thinking block as the masters tell them; but as soon as one gets too big the Dems racism comes to the fore and specious allegations are launched- he smoked drugs, he dealt drugs, look at him in muslim garb, he attended a madrassa, he's not really American, he worked for a slumlord.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
If I were a Superdelegate I'd vote how I wanted. That is what I was elected to that position for.
Click to expand...

That unprincipled, machiavalian kind of thinking is the cause of 99% of the world's problems.

If the Democratic superdelegates ignore the will of the voters and "elect" Hillary, me and millions of other young people are going to stay home. There's no reason to vote for what amounts to the same two people.
 
Watermark said:
That unprincipled, machiavalian kind of thinking is the cause of 99% of the world's problems.

If the Democratic superdelegates ignore the will of the voters and "elect" Hillary, me and millions of other young people are going to stay home. There's no reason to vote for what amounts to the same two people.
Click to expand...

If they overturned the will of the voters, either way, I'd stay home, and I'm not all that young.
 
Watermark said:
That unprincipled, machiavalian kind of thinking is the cause of 99% of the world's problems.

If the Democratic superdelegates ignore the will of the voters and "elect" Hillary, me and millions of other young people are going to stay home. There's no reason to vote for what amounts to the same two people.
Click to expand...
It isn't Machiavellian to do the job one is hired to do.

Now, I am reasonably sure I'd consider how others voted, but when it came right down to it I'd vote for whomever I thought would do the job best.
 
Democracy is fine as long as people vote how the elitists like. If they don't then it's populism, or a flawed system. Democrats are SOO not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top