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.