Let the Voters Decide

Check this out on Democracy for America’s site. For those who were not aware, the Democrap candidate will likely be decided without much input from the voters. If this bugs you more than a tad, you may want to sign the petition.

Let the Voters Decide

I think the whole idea of super delegates is pretty damn disgusting. In case you think you can be less concerned because you’re a registered Repugnican rather than Democrap, check out this wikipedia page that hints at equal problems in the Repug camp and suggests a complete page. In fact, if you know enough about the way the other camp works, you may want to help wikipedia out on the subject.


18 Responses to Let the Voters Decide

  1. HonestAbe says:

    The primaries and caucuses are only popularity contests. They don’t necessarily determine who will be the nominee.

    I understand you’re disgusted by the super delegates, but get over it. This isn’t about who is the most popular, but who will win. If McCain wins the nomination, the Democratic party will be more concerned with which Democrat would beat him. They’re also aware of the backlash of choosing a candidate against the popular vote, but they need to take this into consideration.

    The super delegates aren’t really the problem The problem is two-fold: 1) we don’t have enough qualified parties/candidates running in the actual presidential election, and 2) we have too many voters in this country who don’t know know what the candidates stand for, never watched a single debate, don’t read a newspaper, and don’t even try to educate themselves on what’s going on in the world.

    You have good intentions posting this link, MS, but it’s misguided.

  2. Misanthropic Scott says:


    Apparently, so is believing in democracy, which we do not have in this country.

  3. HonestAbe says:

    If you don’t like our democracy, MS, why haven’t you moved to another one?

  4. Misanthropic Scott says:

    America, love it or leave it? Are you sure you don’t want to change your moniker to Archie Bunker?

  5. HonestAbe says:

    You’re confusing patriotism with racism.

    So why are you avoiding my question?

  6. Misanthropic Scott says:

    No. I’m not confusing anything. The Archie Bunker character on All in the Family was not only racist. He also made a number of statements of the America, Love it or leave it form.

    To answer your question. I have considered leaving the country. I still am considering it. I would rather change the things that suck about this country and restore the things that were great about this country to their former greatness.

    Our electoral process is one of the things that has never been great. It was probably the biggest mistake our founders made. They made some really great decisions about this country. But, not making it either a democracy or a nation weren’t among them.

    Perhaps they met with too much resistance to make this a nation rather than a federation. But, I see no excuse for the fact that we are not a democracy. One person, one vote. That’s democracy. If a vote in Wyoming is worth 3.8 times a vote in California, we have a problem.

    If some political insiders have the power to appoint our presidential candidates completely outside the primary process, that is not democracy.

    So, telling me to get over it is the wrong answer. When our founders saw something truly awful, they rebelled and changed things. It’s time we follow in their footsteps and make changes that will improve this nation. First, we must make it a nation. Second, we must make it a democracy, at all levels.

    If you’d prefer that people who can see the problems with this country just leave, imagine what you’ll be left with. You’ll be left with a bunch of mindless sheeple being taught creationism in schools and randomly disappearing (allowed under the patriot act) if they wake up enough to notice what’s wrong.

    So, that’s probably not a perfect answer to your question. But, it should be good enough to get you over your “Love it or leave it” mentality.

  7. HonestAbe says:

    Wow … you do like to go on like a 6th grade schoolgirl at lunchtime, discussing her crush on the gym teacher with her friends!

    Why shouldn’t the parties have the right to choose their own candidate? The parties will choose the candidate they believe can win the presidency. If they want to nominate a less popular candidate, then they should be able to do it. They’re not going to be stupid about it. (Well, maybe they will!)

    You may have your gripes with the country, but consider that more people are coming in than are leaving. We must be doing something right!

  8. bobbo says:

    I’m with Abe on this one==not because it is right in any sense==its just the way it is.

    Scott, you confuse the “democracy” at play in national elections with the two party system that has grown up and captured/corrupted our politcal system. There is no rational reason for either party to put up candidates based on popular vote==except that is how to attract the most support?

    Third parties and independent candidates can run at will. Where is the popular vote there? I think the super-delegate vote is an excellent idea. They should follow the majority vote, however identified, unless there is good reason not to. 8 months or so between state primaries and the delegate voting. Suppose Obama wins the popular vote in early 2008, but goes back on crack and is found in the alley with needles in his arms and he is “pimping out” his wife for votes/cocaine? Suppose Hillary gets the popular vote and it is found out she paid off Diebold? Super-delegates to the rescue. It is a private party, the private democratic party, decision on who it wants to support for national election.

  9. bobbo says:

    and the big news just yesterday was that “legally” and in fact, even the dedicated delegates pursuant to the state primaries don’t even have to vote according to their own states popular outcome. What a hoot. The more you know, the more the whole system stinks.

  10. Misanthropic Scott says:


    Way to start an intelligent debate. Thick skin etiquette on this site, of course. But, you do not win points in real debates with such childlish lead-ins.

    Why shouldn’t the parties have the right to choose their own candidate?

    Because, in a country so dominated by two party politics with no real hope of any independents doing anything except damage to the real election (see Nader in 2000 for a prime example), the parties are essentially choosing the next president. Or, at the very least, each is choosing one with about 50% chance of winning. This means that they are having a hugely limiting effect on our real choices for president. Further, the electoral college functioning just like the parties makes a sham of the whole process. To call ourselves a democratic nation is a complete and utter lie.


    I think the remarks above should explain my answers to you as well, with the exception of the remarks about the lead in. As for confusion of democracy, if you believe our current system to be in any way a democracy, I think you should A) check the definition and B) check our founders’ opinions on the subject. They did not believe in democracies and deliberately set out not to create one. I think they were wrong on that point.

    BTW, not only are the delegates under no obligation to vote in any particular way, neither are the electoral college members. So, popular vote can go to a candidate in the general election. That candidate could also win the popular vote in literally every single state and that candidate could still lose because the electoral college got bought by the other candidate. Democracy?

  11. bobbo says:

    Scott–I think I’m a little bit confused. The parties are following the example of the electoral college–not the other way around. ANYBODY over 35 etc can run for president including you or me.

    Now, if we want to form our own group, or join some other group, to help us organize and fund our ego trip, we can do that. I don’t know, but I assume the Green Party has requirements before they will support you–like being green? Thats not democracy. Why should the Dems or Pubs be any different just because they have captured the ball for the time being?

    So–you are NOT recognizing where the democracy part of the analysis should be==much more debateable it should be at the national level, but I don’t see any valud argument why private parties should be dictated to by some devotion to the crowd.

    In fact–if the superdelegates did their job==years ago they would not have run Bob Dole==everybody knew he would lose in a popular democractic national election. The republican party members where pretty naive and someone with a more pragmatic view of things “should have” overruled them “if” the repugs actually wanted to win office.

    On the national bit, I agree. Accident of History the States have the power to screw up the popular will—but history often gets a majority vote, right from the git go.

  12. Misanthropic Scott says:


    You’ve got a very good point. In theory, if we could choose from among many parties this might not be so bad.

    However, from a practical standpoint, the only real choices we have are the democraps and the repugnicans. So, who the two parties pick are our only choices. This destroys democracy.

    To have it further ruined by the electoral college so that we don’t even get the one of two we’re presented only makes it worse.

  13. HonestAbe says:

    Hey MS! You’ve got to appreciate the fact that Nader is now running for president! Now we’ll have 50% more candidates than before in the November election!

  14. Misanthropic Scott says:

    Theoretically, yes, I’d be very glad. In practice, this combined with Diebold has caused problems in the past. Let’s see if we can avoid such problems this time around.

    I don’t want the wrong lizard to get in.

  15. Mister Fusion says:

    I understand your point but disagree.

    Although the odds are stacked against you, you could always form your own political party. Remember, the last successful new political party was the Republican Party 150 years ago.

    Choosing a candidate is their prerogative. If I am a member of a specific party, then I have some input into the selection process. If that input is too minor or is ignored than I guess I won’t stay a member of that party for long. Nor can that party count on my help next election.

    As for running for President? As I understand, there are over two hundred candidates every year that pay a filing fee in order to run. While some have serious, if unrealistic, pretensions such as the Communist Party, Greens, and Libertarians, most are just Joe Smucks who want the notoriety of having been a Presidential candidate.

    My father once told me, in one of those worldly wisdoms all fathers have, that you can either be a rebel and try to change the system whole heartedly or you can become a member and make your stamp from the inside. And the Electoral College must go.

  16. Misanthropic Scott says:

    Mister Fusion,

    As I said above, in theory, your statement is all well and good. However, in practice, our two party system is so broken and limiting in our actual choices, that each party is essentially charged with choosing about 50% of our presidents for us and without significant input from us. This is another part of our broken democracy. Personally, I want to vote for candidates, not parties. I think with publicly financed elections, where each candidate who gets enough signatures would get a fixed amount of money with which to run a campaign, we could do away with the parties altogether. We would, of course, have to prevent candidates from spending any money other than the fixed amount on the election. There are some technical difficulties with this. But, even with some minor quirks in the system, it would be far better than today’s.

    And, yes, the electoral college must go.

    Democracy, one person, one vote. Right now, we have one Wyoming person = 3.8 California votes. This is not democracy.

  17. bobbo says:

    So Scott==you want YOUR version of democracy to be imposed over 250 years of history and vested interests? OK.

    How about the current bru-ha-ha over Michigan and Florida. Not very democratic not to count their votes but “the rules” of the party told them clearly what would happen and all the candidates agreed.

    So, in your mind, should democracy rule and all those votes be couned, or should the rules in place be followed? ((Hint, there is a follow up question no matter how you answer.))

  18. Misanthropic Scott says:


    So Scott==you want YOUR version of democracy to be imposed over 250 years of history and vested interests? OK.

    I don’t think it’s my definition. I think it’s the definition. One person, one vote. That’s democracy. The founders set up a republic, deliberately NOT a democracy. I disagree with them on that point. They did a lot of great things. Giving people in some states more power than people in others was not one of them.

    Is the United States a democracy?

    So, in your mind, should democracy rule and all those votes be couned, or should the rules in place be followed?

    Democracy should rule. I’m very curious about your follow up question though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: