You know how I've been hollaring about our electoral system? Here's an absolutely perfect example of a maneuver that shouldn't even exist -- Clinton is going after pledged delegates to get them to switch their votes to her. Not the "unpledged" superdelegate B.S. people -- delegates who are "supposed" to vote for Obama because he won the primaries or caucuses they represent.
And, the maneuver, as unsavory as it is, is perfectly within bounds.
Note that at the very end of the article, there is mention of Obama possibly also working the same loophole. Politico have something against Clinton? I dunno.
Regardless, the strategy itself is exactly, precisely what I was hollaring about when I said below.... "big pile of unnecessary horse shit that just keeps the will of the voter further and further away from the action. A big pile of red tape to make it easier to protect the powers that be."
---
Except: That story may be bullshit. Or is it, and who said what? Off we go then. Whether the allegation is true or not, it's good to have the links up and aired -- now we can watch the circus of folks trying to clean it up.
And, an important point, the delegates *could* do this if they wanted -- so my point stands.
[via Msherm]
Bp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
That's crazy. I thought they were bound by who they are sent to represent on the first vote. This along with the superdelegates makes me wonder why they even bother to hold a convention or even primarys.
Yes, beyond lame.
As I recall, delegates are only bound to "their" candidate on the first vote. If no winner emerges, they are free to switch (which makes sense, else no winner would ever emerge -- there'd be perpetual deadlock).
Now, I ain't sayin' it's right or nothin', but:
- nominating conventions have never been truly democratic affairs. Prior to the ascendance of primaries, they were fascinating spectacles: real competition for nominations, speeches, floor demonstrations, and power being traded in the famous smoke-filled back rooms in exchange for favors.
- there were a number of reforms enacted in teh Democratic Party's nominating process following the riots outside the Democratic Convention in Chicago. These were intended to bring more true representation to the nominating process. However, the amount of power, control, and money at stake qucikly corrupted the new system so that, while it has this veneer of democracy on it, it remains tightly controlled by the core of the party.
As I have mentioned before, even the framers of the Constitution were not in favor of true representative democracy. By way of example:
- there was not universal suffrage. The core of the electorate comprised the landed middle class, who were the people who led the American Revolution (Aside: that revolution was fought not so much n the name of democracy so much as to protect the middle class' economic interests. The Boston Tea Party was about commerce, not democracy, and "No taxation without representation" was a common slogan of the revoltuion)
- while the house of representatives was elected proportionally (modulo the stunts used to draw district lines), the senate was limited to two senators per state with six year terms, precisely to be less volatile -- meaning less responsive to the electorate.
-finally, the Electoral College was put in place as a means to control the outcome of presidential elections in case there was a popular vote which took the election in a direction the politcal parties -- who have always held the true political power -- did not like.
Yes, I believe in one of my tirades on the subject I mentioned that it's been this way (voters pushed away from the process) since the beginning of the country. If I didn't, I sure intended to.
I'm pretty sure the delegates, even when "pledged," are technically allowed to vote for whomever. I'll have to double check this -- I do know that the culture of the process makes it very very very hard on delegates who turncoat like that. I figured the culture had such intense ramifications because although it was allowed, they really didn't want it to happen.
If I get a bug up my butt about it I may try to find the line-item that says one way or the other. But politics is taxing to me lately, so I may drop it.
fug em
LOL
“Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot,” a recent DNC memo states. “A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.”
Yoicks. It just sucks more and more.
Don't it tho? LOL
"voters, they're cute but you don't really have to listen to them, it's about US, the DNC..."
geez
Post a Comment