Why Do Democrats Use Autonomous Super-delegates and Republicans Don't?

a reply to: Aazadan

Our system was never intended to be a true democracy at all. Pure democracies end up being as tyrannical as oligarchies or dictatorships in the end.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: muse7

So these 400+ people have more power to decide the next President of the United States than the millions of voters?! How does that not make you livid? It makes me so angry I could spit.

No

I said those super delegates would have switched to Sanders if he had won more states. If Sanders miraculously comes back and wins the Democratic nomination then those super delegates would have switched from Clinton to Sanders.

The Democratic Party has superdelegates, which include elected officials, like members of Congress, and party officials. At the Democratic convention, superdelegates account for twenty percent of overall delegates and are uncommitted and are not bound in any fashion to any one candidate. In other words, they can throw their support to whomever they want at the convention. The Democratic nomination process was altered to include superdelegates in 1984.

Link

It sounds like they can and probably WILL vote for whoever they want and the voter be damned. I asked this question because I was looking at the results of the election today...

Proportionally speaking it isn't working how you think it is...look here...

Clinton Sanders
1,488 704
Pledged delegates 1,021 678
Superdelegates 467 26

They've never done that though. They back the candidate that eventually wins the primary.

Look at Obama in 08, he was the underdog against Clinton too and defeated her and got the support of the Super delegates and he was a grassroots candidate.

You forget that Obama and Hillary were flown off to Chantilly, VA to the Bilderberg meeting before Obama was "SELECTED"?

We wouldn't have even know about that except for they kept the press on another plane waiting?

Odd how the left hates the 1% but are too stubborn to see how their saviors are just as strung up with puppet strings as the right?

Hillary Lefties obviously adore the 1%. Hillary is blatantly neo-republican. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative (seeing as fiscally conservative now = suckling the big banKing teets)
She hides it well but her past doesn't lie. As I can tell, there are only 2 Hillary supporters on ATS. How she is "winning" 5 states in a landslide only proves to me it's all rigged & reminds me why I don't vote & never will.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

Our system was never intended to be a true democracy at all. Pure democracies end up being as tyrannical as oligarchies or dictatorships in the end.

They certainly have that potential.

Just thought I'd add this (from 2 separate sources).

Haugland is one of just 112 Republican delegates who are “unbound” because their states and territories – North Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming, American Samoa and Guam – hold no primaries or caucuses. Instead, delegates are chosen at state convention without reference to voters’ views on the presidential candidates.

Unbound Delegates Could Hold Key to Stopping Trump at Convention

Haugland is one of 112 Republican delegates who are not required to cast their support for any one candidate because their states and territories don't hold primaries or caucuses.

We choose the nominee, not the voters: Senior GOP official

So apparently there are the equivalent of "superdelegates" in the GOP after all, though they're called "unbound delegates". The number is fewer (112), but Republicans only allocate roughly half as many delegates as the Dems anyway.