Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Now, About Those Super Delegates...

My son informed me that back in 1972, when the Super Delegates were created, two of the people on that committee were Bill and Hillary Clinton. Ironic, isn't it? Talk about creating a monster. Now, that monster has come back to bite Hillary on the ass.

Don't get me wrong. I think the Super Delegates are a great idea, a necessity, even. After all, what if the great unwashed should become enamored of a candidate who is simply incapable of handling the job of president, and they go to the polls en masse and make him their candidate? Or, during the course of the campaign it comes to light that the front runner frequents opium dens for relaxation, or his favorite pasttime is donning a red wig, high heels and sequins, calling himself Fifi and dancing in gay nightclubs. (Not that there's anything wrong with that - it just wouldn't win him the election.)

Yes, we need the Super Delegates. What we DON'T need is for them to insert themselves into the primaries by endorsing a particular candidate. The Republicans have a similar system in place, although I don't know anything about it. But, they don't try to influence the vote during the primaries, I don't think.

Now, we have a situation where the candidate who is wins the popular vote might not win the delegates, which is another thing the Democrats need to look closely at in future elections. And, since many Super Delegates have endorsed either Hillary or Barack, Hillary is now in a position to lose to the candidate who is behind in the popular vote. (Shades of Al Gore and the Republicans in 2002).

But, all is not lost for Hillary. The Super Delegates are free to change their endorsements, and they have many times. Personally, I think they need to look at their home states as a whole and endorse the candidate who carried the popular vote.

In fact, I am even more radical in my thinking than that. I believe that there should be one day set aside every Presidential Election year for a national primary. This takes care of many problems, such as Iowa and New Hampshire moving their primaries ahead of the others, no matter how early it makes them. My PNP (Plan For A National Primary) hasn't been thoroughly fleshed out, as yet. But here it is for starters:

The candidates would have months and months to raise money for their campaigns and they would have time to visit every state to campaign. Then, when National Primary Day comes, no state would be influenced by any other state's earlier votes. I'm leaning toward the idea of the number of delegates the states can have would be dependent upon the population of the state, not divided up into districts for that purpose. Then, the delegates would be obligated to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in that state.

Wouldn't that be a start in the direction of making the elections more fair, and more a reflection of the actual voters? Wouldn't you feel that your vote DOES count, after all?

8 comments:

Kell said...

It's also a little ironic that Hillary's own people voted for the primaries in Michigan and Florida to not count because they wouldn't follow the party's rule, but now they are arguing that those votes should count. Of course, Hillary won those states.

It just keeps getting more and more interesting.

Newt said...

I for one would prefer if we could say *&^$ it all and put Jon Stewart in the white house.

Nancy said...

Betty,
I completely agree with your idea of a National Primary.

The candidates could do all the traveling they want to do in the months before the Primary, but they should also have a debate once a month to weed out the weak candidates.

One thing is important, I think ,and that is to have a primary where you may only vote for the candidate of the party you are registered in.

What is this letting any person walk in and select my candidate? Register in the party of your choice and vote in the primary of your party. That's it! I was very surprised when I heard about open primaries.That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. If I am wrong and it is not ridiculous, can anyone explain it to me?

Betty said...

kell: Whatever they do in Michigan and Florida, it's going to be costly.

newt: Stewart for Prez. Has a nice ring to it.

nancy: I think that at the very least, if you cross-over and vote in the other Party's primary, you should be locked in and have to vote that way in the general election if the candidate you voted for is still in the race.

Nancy said...

Betty,

Good idea! But, better, be permitted to vote only for candidates in the party in which you are registered......

Thanks for this chance to air our views, Betty. I love discussing politics with others who are also informed and interested...

Betty said...

nancy: You're right. That is the best way.

patsy said...

something certainly needs to be done.
I wonder how much snow Harrison has on the ground ?

Sister--Three said...

It would sure save a lot of money if all the hoop a rah was over in a day...not dragged out for a year!

I still say "go Hillary". She is a better man than her husband!!teehee