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

To answer the OP's question. Because "Democracy" is good, when it works in your favor. Get to much "Democracy" outside that? You gotta have "Super-delegates"! After all? You can't have "free thinkers", doing thinker stuff!
How can you maintain control, if you don't maintain control? These "voters" don't know what they want! It hasn't been revealed to them yet! So? Out of a phone booth comes, Superdelgate!

originally posted by: seeker1963

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!

So you're asking me to prove that unicorns and leprachauns don't exist?

You silly goose!

originally posted by: seeker1963

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!

And can you prove that they selected Obama as president there in that meeting?

originally posted by: muse7

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.

He lost Iowa by a coin flip, crushed her in New Hampshire and then lost Nevada by a couple point. The delegate count showed him down by about 500 delegates. You don't see how that might effect turnout when people don't understand the system? If, as you claim, they're going to back whoever does better in the primary's what other purpose do they serve at this point? It seems pretty obvious it's to discourage a grass roots movement just like your brain dead twit DWS said

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: seeker1963

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!

So you're asking me to prove that unicorns and leprachauns don't exist?

You silly goose!

Typical!

I am a threat to your precious ego.

I would rather you address what I said as an adult rather than act like a child, but that's on you?

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: seeker1963

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!

And can you prove that they selected Obama as president there in that meeting?

No I can't, but why did you make fun of me for mentioning they both went there rather than addressing the truth of what I said?

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: muse7

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.

He lost Iowa by a coin flip, crushed her in New Hampshire and then lost Nevada by a couple point. The delegate count showed him down by about 500 delegates. You don't see how that might effect turnout when people don't understand the system? If, as you claim, they're going to back whoever does better in the primary's what other purpose do they serve at this point? It seems pretty obvious it's to discourage a grass roots movement just like your brain dead twit DWS said

States with a higher population have a higher delegate count. Bernie has been winning rural states and Clinton has been winning in more urban areas with higher populations.

a reply to: muse7

One reason he is getting beaten is the seeming lack of support - Popularity begets popularity and for a long time, it's shown Hillary as winning a ton more delegates than he could ever hope to gain, when the picture painted is not a reflection of reality - It did create the circumstances it was pretending to show.

This election is frustrating me quite a bit - I likely need to take a step back and realize I live in the middle of no where, I should just build a cabin with off-grid power and be done with it.

a reply to: deadlyhope

This election is frustrating me quite a bit - I likely need to take a step back and realize I live in the middle of no where, I should just build a cabin with off-grid power and be done with it.

Sometimes I feel like you are reading my mind.

I mean, spot on my thoughts.

a reply to: muse7

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?

Muse, if you aren't out of your mind angry with this then you have amazing emotional control. This is blatant disregard for a free and fair election in my opinion.

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.

Nope. Remember, it still takes 2,383 delegates for a candidate to win the Democratic nomination. So a candidate can still get all of the superdelegates and lose the Democratic nomination. It just gives the party insiders and powerbrokers much more sway than normal voters (kind of like rewarding their loyalty). And remember, those powerbrokers/superdelegates are current and former mayors, governors, members of state and federal congresses, etc. They're literally people with more "skin in the game" than other voters.

Note, I absolutely hate the concept of superdelegates, so I'm not defending it. Just explaining it. Also, a reason superdelegates tend to go along with the popular vote at the convention is for self preservation. A candidate that's running for reelection would be a fool to blatantly ignore his/her constituents' votes for the Presidency.

I don't understand why this is a thing and why we aren't doing something about it.. I am so sick of politics and the slime balls pulling this BS. They are the few and we are the many. When are we going to stand up against it? Why do we continue participating in this ridiculous circus that leads us nowhere and improves nothing? Why aren't all the people as furious as I am about the way things are going?

not sure about the distinction, I don't think delegates should exist, just votes

a reply to: seeker1963

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?

It is not odd it is the game, think about it almost everything we do is a left/right paradigm ....
Sports = left vs right,hell for most games they change sides at half time...
marching = left/right/left/right

I could go on but i am sure there is no need to....we are programmed literally to argue among ourselves, some see through it the rest are caught up in their control system and cannot see through it....sadly

originally posted by: Metallicus

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'.

I don't think it's ever come home to people in a way that matters. People have always chosen the preferred candidates before, so there has been no conflict of interest.

This year is the first time in our memories that there has been this kind of voters' revolt.

originally posted by: ketsuko

This year is the first time in our memories that there has been this kind of voters' revolt.

I recall the 'revolt' at the time of Perot...
but that revolt was not brought about by the Alternative News sources... which is -according to the regime in power- a Domestic Terrorism source of inspiration & guidance.


the people are still groggy after walking-in-their-sleep... but the true Statists of the left/liberal/democrat camps are still following the Clintons' like lemmings to their (& our collective) destruction...
Entropy is unfolding whether it be Hillary or Trump ....
the stage managers & deep government will cause the liquidation of the American experiment for the technocrat-Borg world


as for the super delegates,,, that's just the set up of this system we are forced to live under

a inner circle of elites, an inner-sanctum of persons who have no requirement to explain their verdicts...
in actuality the super delegates are hand picked puppets who are well trained at doggy tricks for the delight of the Masters....
they will find out too late that they are not-so-special after all... many Dystopia's have told this tale in many different ways before... It is a Theme in society-directing-the-masses- & governance of a population

a reply to: St Udio

Yup I voted for perot twice...

How do I know that was a true revolt... congress actually did its dang job for a short while... then the american people went back to sleep and this is what we get.

The original logic, as I understand it, was to help offset the effect of primary party "cross-over" voting ... I.e. Republicans vote for a less-electable/weaker Democratic candidate in the primaries so that their candidate will face a weaker opponent NATIONALLY in November.

You have to remember, the Political Parties are para-Constitutional. There is no provision, at all, for Parties in the Constitution. It is, in the end, the PARTY'S DECISION of who to run on their ticket in November ... it's not a usurpation of "democracy" at all ... at least no more so than the idea of political parties in the first place.

Keep in mind in other western democratic republics, elections are always for a particular Party that then selects the representatives.

Our systems are created to avoid what is sometimes called "raw democracy."

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: seeker1963

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!

And can you prove that they selected Obama as president there in that meeting?

He's prez, ain't he?

originally posted by: Metallicus
Muse, if you aren't out of your mind angry with this then you have amazing emotional control. This is blatant disregard for a free and fair election in my opinion.

No where in our system is democracy promised. Political parties which are private entities take that a step further.

I find it interesting though that those who most speak of voting equality are the same people who are most in favor of high economic inequality when it's the exact same concept.