It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I have been trying to find a good reason that Democrats use these autonomous 'Super-delegates'. I also understand that there are some Super-delegates on the Republican side but they don't have the autonomy that those used by the Democrats do. I realize these are both created layers of complexity used by the two parties, but I don't understand why people stand for this...especially on the Democratic side where they can affect the choice so dramatically.

Could someone explain to me why the Democrat Super-delegates exist? I seems the only purpose for their existence is to subvert he Democratic process. Obviously most of us here would like to see the people decide the election, but only the Democrats have these influential "Super-delegates". It makes me angry as a voter...well, almost everything about American politics make me angry, but why do Democrats take the power from their voters in such a blatant way and why do voters stand for this?

Am I the only one that this makes angry?
edit on 2016/3/15 by Metallicus because: Readability Update




posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   



Straight from the bitch's mouth
edit on 15-3-2016 by EightTF3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   
To be honest I don't know. I got this response from Dead President's blog on Tumblr:




It’s just a Democratic Party thing. It’s basically a way to reward Democratic leaders with real influence by giving them their very own delegate to award to a candidate. It’s like an endorsement that counts.


Link



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Because Republican delegates are only bound by tradition to vote for the elected candidate, not any legal binding, so you could call all of them Super Delegates?

Of course, I don't think anyone has actually really tested that in any large capacity, but there is always a year for everything, and the Republicans seem stupid enough to make this cycle that time.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Super delegates would have switched to Sanders if he had won more states. They generally side with whichever candidate that wins the primaries.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: EightTF3

Wow.

"They exist to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to run against grass roots activists" - DWS

So it really just is as bad as it sounds.

WTF?



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I thought you knew that? It was pretty widely circulated that she said that.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
I have been trying to find a good reason that Democrats use these autonomous 'Super-delegates'. I also understand that there are some Super-delegates on the Republican side but they don't have the autonomy that those used by the Democrats do. I realize these are both created layers of complexity used by the two parties, but I don't understand why people stand for this...especially on the Democratic side where they can affect the choice so dramatically.

Could someone explain to me why the Democrat Super-delegates exist? I seems the only purpose for their existence is to subvert he Democratic process. Obviously most of us here would like to see the people decide the election, but only the Democrats have these influential "Super-delegates". It makes me angry as a voter...well, almost everything about American politics make me angry, but why do Democrats take the power from their voters in such a blatant way and why do voters stand for this?

Am I the only one that this makes angry?


I got an email from Ben Swan on the RNC which says this


Republican National Committeeman Curly Haugland of North Dakota sent a letter on Friday to fellow RNC officials arguing that current party rules allow 2016 Republican National Convention delegates to vote for the presidential candidate of their personal preference during the first round of voting, rather than voting along with the will of voters in their states.

Haughland wrote in a letter published by The Daily Caller that the party’s Rule 38, also called “Unit Rule,” specifically allows Republican convention delegates to vote their conscience in every vote at the convention.

“Every delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention is a completely free agent, free to vote for the candidate of their choice on every ballot at the convention in Cleveland in July. Every delegate is a Superdelegate!” claimed Haughland, who also pointed out that he has “been defending the right of the delegates to the Republican National Convention to vote according to their personal choice in all matters to come before the Republican National Convention, including the vote to nominate the Republican Candidate for President, for several years.”


Source

If this is what your talking about with the Democrats, I think the Republicans are playing the same game! Which should be enough to make every one of us stand up and come together against the system that has conditioned us to hate each other?

Obviously they have become so desperate this election that they have shown us all our votes really don't matter, unless wee agree with them?


edit on 15-3-2016 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: EightTF3
Hey , wait....Debbie is just in a constant state of confusion. I like her. She stands out as the prime comedian in US politics.




posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Metallicus

I thought you knew that? It was pretty widely circulated that she said that.


It is hard for me to understand why the voters of this country allow 400 people to have that much influence in the election process. I don't understand why we put up with things like 'Super-delegates'.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Right there with you.

I think "super-delegates" is a perversion of freedom in any case.

Even if they "often go with the most popular candidate"

They shouldn't exist in the first place.

Next question - How much of our tax dollars are being used to support dumb-ass positions such as these?

If anyone knows, I would like to know! Thanks!



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   

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
Total Delegates 1,488 704
Pledged delegates 1,021 678
Superdelegates 467 26

ETA: So Sanders has 40% of the regular delegates based on the desire of the voters but only 5% of the Super-delegates and you are telling me you think this is working as intended? I call BS.
edit on 2016/3/15 by Metallicus because: eta



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   

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.


Yeah, nothing to see here. All above board. It doesn't hurt at all when people look at the delegate count and It looks like Bernie is getting completely smoked by an insurmountable lead. If that where actually the case then don't count them in delegate counts till the convention. 90% of people don't know WTF a super delegate is.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   

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.
edit on 15-3-2016 by muse7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: EightTF3

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.


Yeah, nothing to see here. All above board. It doesn't hurt at all when people look at the delegate count and It looks like Bernie is getting completely smoked by an insurmountable lead. If that where actually the case then don't count them in delegate counts till the convention. 90% of people don't know WTF a super delegate is.


Well Bernie IS getting smoked in the delegate count. Hillary just ran the table on him tonight. Super delegates don't count towards the state delegate count.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   

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?



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   

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?


Yeah dude when all else fails just make up a crazy conspiracy theory!




posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7

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?


Yeah dude when all else fails just make up a crazy conspiracy theory!



I didn't make anything up!

Take off your blinders, and prove me wrong!

Obama and Hillary BOTH went to the Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, VA! FACT!


edit on 15-3-2016 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join