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.
In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders.
originally posted by: CIAGypsy
After Crushing Defeat, DNC Quirk Still Gives Hillary More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders
I'm not a Democrat...but wow, just wow.
In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders.
How could any party think this is representative of constituents? It would seem to me that the whole "superdelegates" idea is just begging for corruption and the potential to "buy" a candidacy....
The Democratic Party has faced accusations that it has been conducting its nominating process in an undemocratic way, because superdelegates are generally chosen without regard to their preferences in the presidential race and are not obligated to support the candidate chosen by the voters.
originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: ExNihiloRed
Thanks for the link...
The Democratic Party has faced accusations that it has been conducting its nominating process in an undemocratic way, because superdelegates are generally chosen without regard to their preferences in the presidential race and are not obligated to support the candidate chosen by the voters.
The quote above was pulled from your link. It pretty much states the point of my post. I'd feel this way no matter WHAT party was doing it... Individual votes can be easily swayed or bought. It would seem this type of process could be hugely ripe for corruption.
originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: ExNihiloRed
Thanks for the link...
The Democratic Party has faced accusations that it has been conducting its nominating process in an undemocratic way, because superdelegates are generally chosen without regard to their preferences in the presidential race and are not obligated to support the candidate chosen by the voters.
The quote above was pulled from your link. It pretty much states the point of my post. I'd feel this way no matter WHAT party was doing it... Individual votes can be easily swayed or bought. It would seem this type of process could be hugely ripe for corruption.