Is it just me or is the current state of the Democratic party perplexing?
This is supposedly "the party of the people", yet they have a system in place that ensures that if the votes of the people do not lines up with the desires of the hyper wealthy party elite, the party elite can change the nominee. The Superdelegate system is such a blatant slap in the face to the common man voter, that I cannot conceive of anyone joining this party who deos not have a shot at being one of the party elite. Furthermore, they oppose field levelling actiosn like enactinga flat tax rate. My guess is that it is becasue the current system allows hidden tax looopholes that the hyper wealthy party elite love.

There are contradcictions everwhere you look in the Democratic Party.
Don't get me wrong, the Republican party has its problems as well, but they seem far less deceptive.

I was listening to Bill Bennett this morning and a caller asked why the GOP doesn't have a sysytem like democrats and if so, would we (the GOP) be better off for it?

It's tough because the superdelegates are there to ensure that the GE candidate have the most viability of winning in November. I would say it does favor the superwealthy because how else to you get to be a superdelegate without time and money.

But I would also say that the DNC didn't realize that the primaries would be so polarizing or divisive this year. At the outset, this election was looking kind of humdrum, the BIllary campaign machine was gonna get the nod and we could all go on about our days. Then came Obama who has steamrolled Hillary. And with the loss of Michigan and Florida, Hillary won't be able to make the delegate count to make it out of the starting gate to the general election.

However, the superdelegates have a decision. They take a risk with either candidate in terms of electability. Hillary will polarize and repel white male voters. Obama will polarize and repel racists (let's admit it, there are few of those) and women who supported Hillary. And both of them have certain policies and issues that will repel economic conservatives that consider themselves to be liberal otherwise. On top of that, imagine the riots that would ensue if Obama wins the the delegate count and the majority of the votes, but loses the nomination because Howard Dean and company decide to count Florida and Michigan, and HIllary is deemed more electable and make her the nominee. Some of the dems may vote for McCain just out of spite.

So what happens then? I don't think we have even begun to see the what the effect of having only one democrat choice would have John McCain's campaign.

If Obama can minimize the divisive nature of his former pastor and his terrorist connections, he might have a shot in the GE. Because he motivates people to the polls. Especially heretofore disenfranchised black voters and apathetic young voters. If Hillary gets the nod, she'll take the democratic strongholds, but she'll lose the GE because she will not galvanize those young ones to the polls and she will be the target for the wrath of the aforementioned disenfranchised voters.

So personally, I think the winner-take-all delegate system is perhaps more unifying because at the end, the GOP doesn't allow itself to get mired down in this kind of stuff. It's ironically darwinian and brutal in nature but it prevents a good portion of the in-fighting and mud-slinging that is helping neither of democratic candidates and only the GOP nominee.

__________________
Those who cannot think or take responsibility for themselves need, and clamor for, a leader.

I think the Democratic nomination process is no good! I understand that it’s designed to nominate the "Right" person but the current prolonged nominating process plays right into the hands of the opposing party. If this thing goes all the way to the convention because one refuses to bow out ; that leave very little time for the Democrats to get their house in order and select a good V.P. candidate. This has allowed for John McCain to travel around the world as thou he is the President elect. What would happen if Barrak or Hillary would follow behind to visit other world leaders who have already been entrenched with the Bush Administration and Now John McCain (The continuation) and they get a Luke warm response and or no response at all. That would be looked at as a disaster.

__________________
EVERY WORD YOU SAY IS A DOOR WAY TO YOU!

Do we have to point out again that the nomination process has nothing to do with democracy and is really a focus group for the party. It's the same in all parties.
If a candidate nomination were really democratic do you know what it would look like?
No nomination at all. All the candidates would just be on the ballot!

Of course, that would make it so that only the allegedly "nondemocratic" parties would make it.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

So are you saying that the Republican Party elite have a process in place in which they can trump the states' electoral college distribution to select a candidate that the people thought was inferior to the alternative?

The Democratic Party's process is VERY different than the Republicans, and there is no logical argument otherwise!!!

It still amounts to the same thing.
The very existence of a primary limits the people you can choose to vote for in the general election. The party uses a focus group to eliminate all but one. The focus group is only used because it is more accurate than most measures- not because it is democratic.
The Crats have in the past lost based on focus group results (McGovern)... That is why they came up with superdelegates.

The whole process would be more democratic if there were NO primaries and run-off voting was used instead to ensure broad support... but of course neither party would enjoy that as it would put the party with the most candidates at a disadvantage... and at any rate level the field with third parties.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

But of course we have to go back to the old shoe that this isn't a democracy, hasn't been, and if we know what is good for us, never will be.

__________________
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. " - Alexander Hamilton

While I don't agree with your assertion that the Democratic Party process is essentially the same as the Republican's, I do agree that it is somewhat unfair. More often than not it is based on who can bring the most cash into the campaign, not who will be the best candidate!

As far as parties are concerned, those two things are the same.
That's what the primaries are supposed to determine.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Who was it that split the Republican vote in '92? I'm surprised that didn't result in prefferential voting, it would have been far larger than Gore in 2000.