DWS asked to explain how HRC lost NH primary by 22% but won an equal number of delegates

originally posted by: ketsuko
I know...

If you knew why say it was socialistic redistribution? It had nothing to do with socialism or redistribution but people hedging their bets on who the most viable candidate appeared to be when they pledged which is called politics.

a reply to: PsychoEmperor

The Republican Party also uses "superdelegates" in the nomination process.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The big difference is the Republican super delegates are about 5% of the total versus 20% for the Democrats.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, that is a difference. They are also different in how they are chosen. They are also constrained to vote with their State's popular vote.

However, the Democrats are not the only party to use Superdelegates, nor is that encoded in law as the person I responded to seemed to state.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Agreed. I am not particularly fond of the super delegate system even if they are compelled to vote along with state's popular vote.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Gryphon66

Agreed. I am not particularly fond of the super delegate system even if they are compelled to vote along with state's popular vote.

I don't disagree, and further, I'm not fond of the political parties at all, for that matter.

President Washington was right.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sounds like me and you should get all old school political.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sounds like me and you should get all old school political.

I've had that thought before.

I wish I believed in reincarnation; we could use General Washington about now.

Or Jefferson ... or even Madison.

Heck, Millard Fillmore would probably be better than our current selections.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I wish I believed in reincarnation; we could use General Washington about now.

Or Jefferson ... or even Madison.

I would take any of them versus having all of the best traits of the current candidates lumped into one person.

Other superdelegates are chosen during the primary season. Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination.

This contrasts with convention delegates that are selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination.

en.wikipedia.org...

There is no rule that says they have to go to a single person a couple of state 'chose' when the rest of the country doesn't have a say in the matter.

The bigger crime here is that only a few states in the union 'decide' who we get to vote for.

a reply to: neo96

Super delegate #69

Bill Clinton[69] NY DPL Clinton

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ah, but the Chief Executive is not solely a representative of the people. He is a representative of the country, including the Congressional Branch and Judicial (Federal Government), and all the separate states and THEIR respective governments, too.

Actually, the president doesn't represent anything as far as the Legislative and Judicial branches are concerned, as they are separate (but equal) co-existing branches. Sure, he is the figure head of the nation (and, by extension, everything that falls under that umbrella), but saying that he is a representative is nonsense, as he has zero implied or expressed role to do the will of the people--that is what the House and Senate are for, and even then, the Senate is further removed from that responsibility than is the House of Representatives. But at least the senators still have to answer directly to the people who voted him/her into office (even if it wasn't originally designed that way, as you noted). The president doesn't really need to do any of that--of course, if he doesn't, he'll see his popularity go down, but obviously that doesn't even matter during a second term, as we see now with a quite unpopular president who still continues to do whatever he wants (vetoes, executive actions, etc.) regardless as to whether the majority of citizenry approves.

Of course, I wouldn't be so ignorant as to say the president should always bow to the majority of its citizens, but it'd be nice if they all at least allowed the wants of the people to weigh heavily on their decisions that directly affect the people.

The EC was designed to implement a process of selection that reflected all of that, not JUST the will of the people. We have our pure Representatives. They sit in the House. We are not even supposed to have the Senators, who were originally supposed to be representatives of the state governments, not the people of the states.

The entire process was supposed to be a check and balance in the system to keep the government restrained.

I'm quite certain that the EC was designed to (a) keep the general population from voting for someone who manipulated them during their campaign and to (b) give a bit more voting power to the smaller states. And unless I'm mistaken, at the time the EC idea was introduced during the constitutional convention, it was based much more on the latter than the former.

But I would argue that the EC is no longer a necessary entity during our elections, although letter "a" above has never ceased from happening, and letter "b" above is irrelevant as well, now. But not just because many of the original 'ratification states' are in the top 50% of population in 2016, but because the access to voting and the information on each candidate is so easily found and learned and accessible that we don't need anyone to represent our votes anymore.

The EC was not, in any way, a part of the checks and balances found in the constitution--at least as it pertains to the co-equal branches of government.

I took the weekend off from ATS...sorry for the late response.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Actually, the president doesn't represent anything as far as the Legislative and Judicial branches are concerned, as they are separate (but equal) co-existing branches. Sure, he is the figure head of the nation (and, by extension, everything that falls under that umbrella), but saying that he is a representative is nonsense, as he has zero implied or expressed role to do the will of the people--that is what the House and Senate are for, and even then, the Senate is further removed from that responsibility than is the House of Representatives. But at least the senators still have to answer directly to the people who voted him/her into office (even if it wasn't originally designed that way, as you noted). The president doesn't really need to do any of that...

Which is why the President, as conceived by the Founders, was to deal with foreign policy instead of dicking around in domestic affairs as the position has evolved into.

originally posted by: schuyler
It still has meaning,, and because of the Electoral College it has MORE meaning than it otherwise would. We had a discussion about that a few weeks ago.

Yep, and we still disagree on the need for it in modern society.

And for the record, the number of times an Electoral College member has voted against the "will of the people" in his or her state amounts to a handful, and half of those were because the candidate had died between the time of the popular election and the later Electoral College election. Further, none of these Electoral College "protest votes" has changed the course of the elections. It's never really been a factor.

That's like those who argue that pursuing voter fraud loopholes in some voting systems is pointless because there is only a handful of fraud that gets caught.

Wouldn't it just be better to have a system where the capability of the fraud was abolished outright? Why leave the loopholes open until it becomes a major problem? It only takes once.

The Electoral College has been "against" the majority vote two or three times in the history of the Republic, most notably with Bush II when Florida was the swing state. But, as you say, PEOPLE aren't the only factor here. States are, too. and the Electoral College is one of the last vestiges of the importance states alone once had.

And I'll go back to what I said in your other thread--our government is supposed to be (if you believe Lincoln) one that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." If electing everyone from our local school board officials through our senators is good enough for the popular vote, the presidential election should not be any different. The state, as an entity, is not a person, and needs no official representation in the electing of our presidents.

But, opinions are opinions, and since yours sides with the current system, I guess you win.

Sorry for the late response.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Hells to the MF-in' Yeah

I guess arguing the merits of this or that current part of any governmental process is pointless since our government bears only a vague resemblance to that which it was designed to be.

#sadnipples