BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "HK"
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: Hillay bites the dust



Yet another reason why I prefer *closed* primaries and secret
ballot voting, as opposed to open primaries, which encourage
crossovers, and caucuses, which encourage group vote, not secret
ballot vote.

Yet, you are a fan of "brokered" conventions?

Eisboch


I like the rough and tumble of tight primary races and conventions
in which delegates make a difference, and have to vote many times in
order to select a delegate. A good convention is like a microcosm of
the House of Representatives, with the delegates elected by the
people back home working for consensus. It's not the same animal as
a caucus.

Today's conventions are just too antiseptic for my taste.


That's all fine, good and healthy if it weren't for the "Super
Delegates" who don't necessarily have the backing of the people back
home. That's where the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"
deals are made.

Eisboch



The super delegates as a group will support the will of the voters and
their delegates. If Hillary doesn't do very well in Texas, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania, it is all over for her.

What is the original purpose of the super delegates. Why do they exist?
What problem(s) do they solve to justify their existence?

For the Democrat party, which wants to be called the Democratic party,
to use super delegates to select their nominee to the Presidency is
laughable due to it not being a democratic process.


They were started because of the 68 Convention, and because every time
they had a brokered convention, they hurt themselves so badly, they lost
the general election. The Republican's use a winner take all delegate
program in many states so it won't go to a broker convention. Since
this follows the general election, I think it makes more sense than
Super Delegats who can overide the entire primary system.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:26:17 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


They were started because of the 68 Convention, and because every time
they had a brokered convention, they hurt themselves so badly, they lost
the general election. The Republican's use a winner take all delegate
program in many states so it won't go to a broker convention. Since
this follows the general election, I think it makes more sense than
Super Delegats who can overide the entire primary system.

With all this talk of the Democrat's Super Delegates, it's interesting to
note, the Republicans will have the same percentage of *unpledged*
delegates at their convention. Although, in the case of Republicans,
it's dependent on the way the states designate their delegates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/hor...republica.html

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:26:17 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


They were started because of the 68 Convention, and because every time
they had a brokered convention, they hurt themselves so badly, they lost
the general election. The Republican's use a winner take all delegate
program in many states so it won't go to a broker convention. Since
this follows the general election, I think it makes more sense than
Super Delegats who can overide the entire primary system.

With all this talk of the Democrat's Super Delegates, it's interesting to
note, the Republicans will have the same percentage of *unpledged*
delegates at their convention. Although, in the case of Republicans,
it's dependent on the way the states designate their delegates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/hor...republica.html


My guess is that the "Super Delegate" buzz is just something the media
is using to try to build up more interest (and ratings) in political
coverage.

"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:26:17 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


They were started because of the 68 Convention, and because every time
they had a brokered convention, they hurt themselves so badly, they lost
the general election. The Republican's use a winner take all delegate
program in many states so it won't go to a broker convention. Since
this follows the general election, I think it makes more sense than
Super Delegats who can overide the entire primary system.

With all this talk of the Democrat's Super Delegates, it's interesting to
note, the Republicans will have the same percentage of *unpledged*
delegates at their convention. Although, in the case of Republicans,
it's dependent on the way the states designate their delegates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/hor...republica.html


My guess is that the "Super Delegate" buzz is just something the media is
using to try to build up more interest (and ratings) in political
coverage.
How lucky the super delegates are. They can vote as they please without
worrying about the will of the people or being accused of accepting bribes
or of influence peddling, or making deals under the table. Pure and simply
the best way to represent the people. At least that is the way Harry looks
at it.