Announcement

**MarkG** · February 4, 2008, 04:39

Re: I just had CNN runing in the backround... ?!?

Originally posted by Heraclitus
...and if there are 10 delegates, and one of the candidates get 60%, he gets 6 delegates...

Needless to say that caught my attention a bit... The impression wasn't improved when simple information was then displayed in pretty red signs.

did they have 10 green little people that got separated into 6 red and 4 blue little people or something?

**Kassiopeia** · February 4, 2008, 04:40

The delegate system in the Democratic primaries is fairly complex and very varied between states, so it's not a given that if someone gets 60 % of the vote in a state/precinct/district, they get 6 delegates out of 10.

**MarkG** · February 4, 2008, 04:53

i think there are some states that winner takes all or not?

**Dinner** · February 4, 2008, 04:55

The system is ripe with corruption what with super delegates (a single delegate who gets more votes then other people) and winner take all states (if you get 50%+1 vote then you get every delegate in the state) all of which is designed to make sure the candidate the party elders select is the one who wins. It's very undemocratic.

**Heraclitus** · February 4, 2008, 04:58

Well, I belive it is undemocratic but why is the presentation so, well substandard... as much of news seems to be these day's.

**MarkG** · February 4, 2008, 05:07

Originally posted by Heraclitus
why is the presentation so, well substandard... as much of news seems to be these day's.

it's more cost effective to produce silly graphics on delegate percentages than quality content

**VetLegion** · February 4, 2008, 07:46

Re: I just had CNN runing in the backround... ?!?

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Not listening... apparently a little bit was running about how delegates work in the American one party system:

...and if there are 10 delegates, and one of the candidates get 60%, he gets 6 delegates...

What am I missing here? That's correct.

Slovenian education system

**MarkG** · February 4, 2008, 08:37

making silly comments without fully reading people's posts because of their ethnicity

**SlowwHand** · February 4, 2008, 09:08

Whining while offering no alternative

**PLATO** · February 4, 2008, 10:39

Originally posted by Oerdin
The system is ripe with corruption what with super delegates (a single delegate who gets more votes then other people) and winner take all states (if you get 50%+1 vote then you get every delegate in the state) all of which is designed to make sure the candidate the party elders select is the one who wins. It's very undemocratic.

Superdelegates are delegates to a presidential nominating convention in the United States who are not bound by the decisions of party primaries or caucuses. Superdelegates are elected officeholders and party officials.

Superdelegates were first appointed in the 1970s, after control of the nomination process in the Democratic Party effectively moved out of the hands of party officials into the primary and caucus process. The aim was to grant some say in the process to people who had been playing roles in the party before the election year.

The 2008 Democratic National Convention, where the Democratic presidential ticket is formally agreed upon, has 796[2] superdelegates, although the number is not final until March 1, 2008. Superdelegates to the Democratic Convention include all Democratic members of the United States Congress, Democratic governors, various additional elected officials, as well as members of the Democratic National Committee.[3] A list of superdelegates can be found here.

A candidate needs a simple majority of the combined delegate and superdelegate votes to secure the nomination. Democratic delegates from state caucuses and primaries number 3,253, resulting in a total number of votes of 4,049. The total number of delegate votes needed to win the nomination is 2,025.[2] Superdelegates account for approximately one fifth (19.6%) of all votes at the convention. Delegates chosen in the Democratic caucuses and primaries account for approximately four fifths (80.4%) of the Democratic convention delegates.[2][4] Note: All numbers in this section assume that Michigan and Florida's delegates are not counted per current Democratic National Committee rules. If those rules are changed before or during the convention, the numbers above will change as appropriate.

Democratic Party is often criticized during election cycles for conducting primary elections in a non-democratic fashion, since superdelegates are appointed by the party and are not obligated to support the candidate chosen by the voters. There have been repeated calls to eliminate the superdelegates from the primaries to more accurately reflect the popular vote.

Superdelegate - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

No single delegate gets more votes than any other. It is just the establishments way of making sure the people don't get carried away and do something to far out of the party mainline.

The conventional wisdom that is running around is that Hillary has the majority of the superdelegates locked up. That is why Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama is so hard on the Clinton campaign...he is a superdelegate and if his position causes an exodus of superdelegates to the Obama camp then Hillary has a real problem.

**Kassiopeia** · February 4, 2008, 11:04

Superdelegates are also a sort of safety measure against a brokered convention - the party leadership can plead them to flock to a candidate if it's enough to bring them over to a majority.

No winner take all states in the Dem primaries, either. Only Republican.

And I suspect Clinton's superdelegates will jump ship if it looks like Obama's the one. There are many of those unpledged yet as well, and even pledged they're not really obligated like the normal delegates you win in primaries are.

I think it's certainly more democratic than the official federal elections, since all the states on the Dem side are proportionally represented in the convention. The media orgy over the early states is a problem, of course. And it's certainly more democratic than party bosses in a smoke-filled room.

(Hello threadjack!)

**Asher** · February 4, 2008, 11:25

Terrible troll thread: in not every state does 60% of the vote give 60% of the delegates.

**Heraclitus** · February 4, 2008, 12:10

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Whining while offering no alternative

Ironicaly your post fits the definition.

**Heraclitus** · February 4, 2008, 12:12

Originally posted by Kassiopeia
Superdelegates are also a sort of safety measure against a brokered convention - the party leadership can plead them to flock to a candidate if it's enough to bring them over to a majority.

No winner take all states in the Dem primaries, either. Only Republican.

And I suspect Clinton's superdelegates will jump ship if it looks like Obama's the one. There are many of those unpledged yet as well, and even pledged they're not really obligated like the normal delegates you win in primaries are.

I think it's certainly more democratic than the official federal elections, since all the states on the Dem side are proportionally represented in the convention. The media orgy over the early states is a problem, of course. And it's certainly more democratic than party bosses in a smoke-filled room.

(Hello threadjack!)

This may be an odd sugestion, but why not have a multi-party system?

Announcement

I just had CNN runing in the backround... ?!?

I just had CNN runing in the backround... ?!?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment