Obama and the Super Delegates.

[slugshooter]

This is a blog that I posted on my politics site on myspace. Tell me what you think.

"Much is being said about Senator Obama's lead in the super delegate category, and how in the last week he has taken the lead over Senator Clinton in that category. What does that tell us? It tells me that with all the calls for unity in the Democratic Party, there is anything but. I decided a long time ago who my choice for president was going to be. Barring any calamities, my vote will still go to the one I chose. What does it say for a major political party, who representatives in Washington, D.C. cannot even make a choice and stick with it, choosing instead to follow the way the wind blows.

Don't get me wrong, Senator Obama may make a fine president, as would Senators Clinton and McCain. This super delegate scheme for the Democratic Party is nothing more than that, a scheme. Granted, in our Republican form of government, we the people elect those we wish to represent us in Washington. One person, one vote. With the scheme the Democrats have devised, the elected representatives in Washington get not one, but two votes. They have already, or will vote in their respective states primary, and then they get to cast another vote to decide their candidate. Does the Democratic Party not feel that the members of the populace registered in their parties name have the intelligence to decide who their candidate should be? It is much like the Electoral College, where in November, Americans do not vote for a president, they vote for an elector to vote for president.

I feel that this election should be the last in which the Democratic Party uses this super delegate scheme. Our system is supposed to be a winner take all system. The most votes wins the election. Period. How fair would it be to Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, if at the end of the primaries, one candidate is in the lead, and the super delegates, who remember have already cast one vote, thrust the second place candidate into the presidential race? Not very fair, and probably unconstitutional.

Just another way to take the voice of the people away from the people. And I am a registered Democrat."

[wtnhunt]

You wrote this Marc, right? Looks OK to me, one thing I see that you may want to change is in this sentence below:

I decided a long time ago who my choose for president was going to be.

Might sound a little better with choice. But yeah overall what you wrote makes sense to me.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

How fair would it be to Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, if at the end of the primaries, one candidate is in the lead, and the super delegates, who remember have already cast one vote, thrust the second place candidate into the presidential race? Not very fair, and probably unconstitutional. Just another way to take the voice of the people away from the people. And I am a registered Democrat."

I agree that the entire premise behind Superdelagates is to create a mechanism to potentially overturn the state primary and caucus results, should the Democratic Party leadership decide to do so. However, it certainly is not unconstitutional. The Constitution has absolutely no bearing on internal party rules governing the selection of candidates, which is what the primary system is all about. As far as the Constitution is concerned, Democrats and Republicans can choose their respective candidates in any manner they see fit.

BTW - I also believe that open primaries (where you can vote in either party's primary) are not a good idea. I think that only registered members of a particular party should determine that party's candidate. If you are registered as an Independent, then you will only vote in the general election, not the primaries.

[slugshooter]

You wrote this Marc, right? Looks OK to me, one thing I see that you may want to change is in this sentence below:

Might sound a little better with choice. But yeah overall what you wrote makes sense to me.

Oops. That's what happens when you have five words running around in your head and you choose the wrong one.

[slugshooter]

If you are registered as an Independent, then you will only vote in the general election, not the primaries.

That's why I am no longer registered independent or unaffiliated. If I am going to vote in November, I at least want to have a say in who I want to vote for in November. I am not a big fan of open primaries either.

[johnf]

Sounds good. I might put quotes around "We the People" the way you've got it, it sounds like your a republican. But we all knew better.

If I remember correctly the superdeligate thing started when Jimmy Carter beat Ted Kennedy for the D nomination and the party decided that "we the people" needed help making the "right decision".

To steal a quote from "Animal Farm". "We are all equal, some of us are just more equal"

Good to see you on here.

[stevebeilgard]

i'd like to see our entire system dump the electoral college. one vote per person (with proper i.d.) and the one with the most votes wins. pure & simple. like me. lol

[johnf]

i'd like to see our entire system dump the electoral college. one vote per person (with proper i.d.) and the one with the most votes wins. pure & simple. like me. lol

The purpose of the electoral college was to give rural states an equal footing in deciding the presidencey. If it were a popular vote only then you could take all the people on welfare and all the people in big citys votes and forget about everyone else. They would decide and the small states like Arkansas wouldn't matter.

The electoral college was put into place so that the urban states couldn't make the decision on their own. It would be a mistake to get rid of it.

[OJR]

I agree with John. It would be a very bad deal to dump the electoral college! Over half the states wouldn't count if they did get rid of it!

[stevebeilgard]

actually the system was designed hundreds of years ago, before modern communications. we just don't need it any more. so i continue to disagree..

[wtnhunt]

If it were a popular vote only then you could take all the people on welfare and all the people in big citys votes and forget about everyone else. They would decide and the small states like Arkansas wouldn't matter.

The electoral college was put into place so that the urban states couldn't make the decision on their own. It would be a mistake to get rid of it.

If it were a true popular vote, it would not go by states won, therefore dumping the electoral college could eliminate states not being represented as suggested.

[slugshooter]

The only way that the abolishment of the Electoral College would allow a large urban state to swing the balance of an election would be to still afford a certain weight to a states vote. 200 years ago, when the population of Virginia was larger than the population of New Jersey, it had credence, but not in today's society. If a true popular vote was held, then election results would not be broken down into state, county, parish, or city. Our government is not even a true form of republicanism if the popular vote can be assigned weighted values. Don't get me wrong, I see the argument, ie. Bush v. Gore in 2000. Gore had the popular vote, but the amount of states won and electoral votes won by Bush was larger. Saying that it wouldn't be fair for California's votes to swing the election one way is the same as saying that Montana's votes can swing the election one way. The only true fair way IMHO is a direct popular vote with no distinction on who won what state.

[johnf]

So then we put the power into the hands of the uneducated welfar recipiants? Better yet why don't we let illigals vote sence apparently they're here to stay anyway. They can vote themselves in some new welfare.

That's a great plan.

I'm all for only people who own thier own home or property voting.

If you don't put anything into a society, then you don't get a vote. (much like our house and the remote:p)

[wtnhunt]

The purpose of the electoral college was to give rural states an equal footing in deciding the presidencey. If it were a popular vote only then you could take all the people on welfare and all the people in big citys votes and forget about everyone else. They would decide and the small states like Arkansas wouldn't matter.

The electoral college was put into place so that the urban states couldn't make the decision on their own. It would be a mistake to get rid of it.

So then we put the power into the hands of the uneducated welfar recipiants? Better yet why don't we let illigals vote sence apparently they're here to stay anyway. They can vote themselves in some new welfare.

That's a great plan.

I'm all for only people who own thier own home or property voting.

If you don't put anything into a society, then you don't get a vote. (much like our house and the remote:p)

The only way for a popular vote to work, would be just as Marc and I replied, to take the states totally out of the equation(removing the weighted electoral counts completely) which would make it a popular voting system. Therefore no state would count more or less and it would not matter if there were more welfare or low income("uneducated" as you put it) people in that state than another.

Couple questions you need to ask yourself. Welfare recipients may still be legal citizens and legal voters, is it right or fair to discount them due to their financial status? That might seem like oppression. What about those who fall hard on their luck and rely on the system for what it was really intended for, just to get back on their feet, or for those just starting out in life who need a little help, who later on may be wealthy? Do not hardly think discounting their right to vote, granted they are here legally, is constitutional.

A popular voting system in this country could work.

[slugshooter]

I'm about ready to sound like a Republican here, but I am all for requiring some type of identification when arriving at the polls to eliminate the possibility of illegals or ineligibles in voting. As far as welfare recipients, they have every right to vote as any other law abiding citizen, the only flaw in that argument, is that historically, low income folks such as those on welfare don't bother to vote anyways, that may change with Obama being so popular, but who knows, look at his rallies, there's a lot of white faces there. The outcome this November to me is up in the air, I know who I am voting for, the only solace I find is in the fact that while traditional Conservatives may not like John McCain, they will never vote for Hillary or Barack and would vote McCain just to keep the other two out of the White House, and Hillary's people most likely will not vote for Obama and vice versa.

[stevebeilgard]

isn't the dems system very similar to our electoral college system??? didn't gore actually have more individual votes in 2000?, and bush still won due to the electoral college system? at least that is what my history books say. i'm against the super delegate thing, especially from the party that demands to count each and every vote. except the military absentee vote, of course.

history also tells us that gore actually won in 2000. IF he had wanted to recount all the florida votes, he's have won. but he only wanted to count 3 counties, thinking he's lose if he counted them all. he was wrong, and history is history.

[slugshooter]

I don't think the whole superdelegate thing is similar to the electoral college in that the superdelegates do not on their own elect their nominee, although if you want to stretch it, it is somewhat the same concept. The superdelegates could in fact tip the balance of the primary votes if and when they cast their votes and the other candidate is ahead.

As far as Bush v. Gore in 2000. Al Gore is only the second person in history to receive more popular votes and still lose the election. To me, that speaks more negatively than positively in regards to the electoral college. 41 presidents won the election with more popular votes and would have won regardless of the electoral college. IMO, the other 2 would-have-been presidents got the short end of the stick.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

So, for those who favor eliminating the Electoral College, are you prepared to turn control of the selection process over to the citizens of the 15 largest cities? In effect, that's what will happen. Every four years the residents of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Detroit, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, San Francisco and Columbus will decide who our next President will be.

[slugshooter]

So what you're saying is, is that the population of those 15 cities, which according to 2000 Census figures is 27,809,925 is will be responsible for electing the president every four years. Out of a total population of 281,421,906 of which 209,128,094 is of voting age. And since we know all of those aren't registered to vote, and many of them do not vote. In 2004 there were 122,284,939 votes cast of which Bush got 62,039,073 and Kerry got 59,027,478,the difference being roughly the population of the city of Los Angeles in 2000, so basically, if you want to look at it in terms of cities electing the candidates, then the city of Los Angeles elected George W. Bush president. In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by roughly 500,000 votes, meaning that the State of Idaho, with a total of 501,615 votes cast in 2000 still didn't help Al Gore win the election.

What I am trying to get at is if you let census figures and voting outcomes in cities and states allow you to determine who would be electing the president, then the electoral college is for you. I would much prefer to have a true Republican form of government with a direct election rather than indirect and leave state figures out of it. We cannot have a true "winner-take-all" form of elections if the true winner doesn't win.

[wtnhunt]

Not sure how you are coming to that conclusion either Mike. With a popular vote, even if the majority of those voters in all those cities you mention picked one candidate over another, it would not be weighted and end up being an all or nothing as it is now with the current electoral system, on the contrary the voters in the minority of the vote would have their votes count to the nationwide totals as where with the current system they really do not count if their candidate loses that state. With ditching the electoral college going to a popular vote it would not matter what the city's or states majority vote ended up being, because the votes would be counted overall not by state nor by city but by how many voters actually voted for the candidates.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

What I'm getting at is that without the natural "diluting" process of the Electoral College, there would be enough votes packed into the urban areas alone to determine presidential election results.

And we all know that one party's base is centralized around counties with large urban areas and the other's is scattered throughout suburban and rural areas.

And this trend will accelerate as urban areas increase in population while the rural areas decrease.

We see some of that right now in California and New York state.

[stevebeilgard]

well, tex, this is the basis of my disagreement. one vote should equal one vote, the most votes wins. yes, algore would have won in 2000, but so be it. an "electoral vote" supposedly on my behalf is not required to represent the majority of his district. very similar to the dems vote.

with modern communications, one vote should equal one vote. may the highest vote count win. imho

[johnf]

Couple questions you need to ask yourself. Welfare recipients may still be legal citizens and legal voters, is it right or fair to discount them due to their financial status? That might seem like oppression. What about those who fall hard on their luck and rely on the system for what it was really intended for, just to get back on their feet, or for those just starting out in life who need a little help, who later on may be wealthy? Do not hardly think discounting their right to vote, granted they are here legally, is constitutional.

A popular voting system in this country could work.

The actual writers of the constitution thought it was constitutional. They didn't all agree that women shouldn't vote. They didn't all agree with slavery. But they all agreed that only land owners should vote.

So if the writers of the constitution made that rule, then yes. It is constitutional.

[slugshooter]

The actual writers of the constitution thought it was constitutional. They didn't all agree that women shouldn't vote. They didn't all agree with slavery. But they all agreed that only land owners should vote.

So if the writers of the constitution made that rule, then yes. It is constitutional.

Well John, the writers of the constitution in Article I, Section 2, also wrote that slaves (blacks) were to be counted as 3/5's of a person, not a whole person, only 60% of a person, but that was changed by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment. They also wrote in Article I Section 3 that the state legislature would vote for U.S. Senators, but that was changed by the 17th Amendment.

In actuality, there is nothing in the Constitution stating that you had to be a male, white, landowner to be able to vote. The only thing in reference to this in in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment which states that if the right to vote is denied to male inhabitants of a particular state and that are 21 years of age, then the basis of determining congressional representation shall be reduced in proportion to the whole number of male inhabitants of that particular state. Since the unwritten rule of only allowing free white male landowners to vote was unconstitutional, the 15th Amendment was written that stated that the right of citizens of the U.S. to vote shall not be denied by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude because based on the 14th Amendment, all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are deemed citizens of the U.S. and the state in which they reside.

The problem resides in that states wanted to enforce their own interpretations of the law, which is exactly what the amendments to the U.S. Constitution are for, to defend the rights of the citizens of this country. So then they had to write the 19th Amendment, because although women were considered citizens under the 14th Amendment, they still weren't allowed to vote under the rules of the "mens club" that governed, so the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. And then we step into the 1960's, where almost 100 years previous the 14th Amendment basically guaranteed the right of blacks to vote, certain folks in the southern U.S. decided that blacks either had to pay a poll tax or take a test to be able to vote, never mind the fact that the very ones giving the test probably couldn't have passed it either, so the 24th Amendment ruled the poll tax unconstitutional which enabled those poor black folks on welfare to vote, as well as the poor white folks on welfare, the only problem is, white folks weren't made to pay a poll tax. Then, just to wrap things up in the 1970's, somebody realized that hey, if we can force 18 year olds to join the military and die for their country, shouldn't we at least give them the opportunity to vote against the legislators and presidents who sent them off to fight, and thus became the 26th Amendment.

Bot nowhere in the constitution does it say that in order to vote you had to be a free white male landowner and 21 years of age. That was just the unwritten rule so to speak that unfortunately had to be broken by adding amendments to the constitution in order to enforce the right of all citizens to be able to vote for who governs them. If we went back to that, then well we would not have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

[wtnhunt]

well, tex, this is the basis of my disagreement. one vote should equal one vote, the most votes wins. yes, algore would have won in 2000, but so be it. an "electoral vote" supposedly on my behalf is not required to represent the majority of his district. very similar to the dems vote.

with modern communications, one vote should equal one vote. may the highest vote count win. imho

Thought I was pretty clear, but this is what I have been trying to say too Mike.

The actual writers of the constitution thought it was constitutional. They didn't all agree that women shouldn't vote. They didn't all agree with slavery. But they all agreed that only land owners should vote.

So if the writers of the constitution made that rule, then yes. It is constitutional.

Well John, the writers of the constitution in Article I, Section 2, also wrote that slaves (blacks) were to be counted as 3/5's of a person, not a whole person, only 60% of a person, but that was changed by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment. They also wrote in Article I Section 3 that the state legislature would vote for U.S. Senators, but that was changed by the 17th Amendment.

In actuality, there is nothing in the Constitution stating that you had to be a male, white, landowner to be able to vote. The only thing in reference to this in in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment which states that if the right to vote is denied to male inhabitants of a particular state and that are 21 years of age, then the basis of determining congressional representation shall be reduced in proportion to the whole number of male inhabitants of that particular state. Since the unwritten rule of only allowing free white male landowners to vote was unconstitutional, the 15th Amendment was written that stated that the right of citizens of the U.S. to vote shall not be denied by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude because based on the 14th Amendment, all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are deemed citizens of the U.S. and the state in which they reside.

The problem resides in that states wanted to enforce their own interpretations of the law, which is exactly what the amendments to the U.S. Constitution are for, to defend the rights of the citizens of this country. So then they had to write the 19th Amendment, because although women were considered citizens under the 14th Amendment, they still weren't allowed to vote under the rules of the "mens club" that governed, so the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. And then we step into the 1960's, where almost 100 years previous the 14th Amendment basically guaranteed the right of blacks to vote, certain folks in the southern U.S. decided that blacks either had to pay a poll tax or take a test to be able to vote, never mind the fact that the very ones giving the test probably couldn't have passed it either, so the 24th Amendment ruled the poll tax unconstitutional which enabled those poor black folks on welfare to vote, as well as the poor white folks on welfare, the only problem is, white folks weren't made to pay a poll tax. Then, just to wrap things up in the 1970's, somebody realized that hey, if we can force 18 year olds to join the military and die for their country, shouldn't we at least give them the opportunity to vote against the legislators and presidents who sent them off to fight, and thus became the 26th Amendment.

Bot nowhere in the constitution does it say that in order to vote you had to be a free white male landowner and 21 years of age. That was just the unwritten rule so to speak that unfortunately had to be broken by adding amendments to the constitution in order to enforce the right of all citizens to be able to vote for who governs them. If we went back to that, then well we would not have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Great reply Marc.