Quote:
Originally Posted by roni
So, you are suggesting that super-dels be allowed to do fractional voting, perhaps, in to perfectly reflect the votes of people who voted in Democratic primaries in their home state - which would totally negate the rationale and reason for being of these delegates in the first place.
Then you have the caucus states, which are a whole nother non-election ball of wax.
|
I don't think so...
Well I do think (and I've said this before) that now that I know more about them and have been to one, I would definitely reject caucuses in favor of primaries. I mean, the caucus format is more entertaining and social, and that is worth something, but I don't see it as being as democratic as a regular voting primary.
But on the former point, no, I just don't want superdelegates at all. Wouldn't that be easier? I mean, with the Electoral College, as I said if it's too hard politically to get rid of the system entirely and just let the people's votes decide the thing, well then I'm a reasonable man and I'm not opposed to a proportional system, dividing a particular state's Electoral College votes proportionately to reflect the popular vote in that state, even if that means in the math that you can't always do it exactly. But I would not suggest in that context or in this one any kind of fractional voting, because in that one, it would be overly complicated and gain little, and in this one, the much more obvious solution is just to get rid of superdelegates (or explicitly prevent them from overturning the people's choice via pledged delegates, though that would amount to the same thing s just eliminating them, since the power to overturn the people's choice is their whole
raison d'être).
Steve