DISQUS

Charles · 1 year ago

I personally don't like the idea of delegates, super or otherwise, the winner of the overall popular vote should get the nomination.

Whichever candidate that is, all of the delegates should go to that candidate.

Josiah · 1 year ago

Maybe my view is a contrary one, but I like superdelegates for the same reason that I feel that caucuses are better than ballot voting for primaries.

The goal of primaries is to determine what candidate the party, as a body, is most able to throw its weight behind in the general election.Caucuses seem to draw people who are most interested in shaping the party, where ballot voting effects a tabulation of anonymous popularity. For the sake of the primaries, it is the former that seems to me most necessary: the goal is to select the candidate who most represents the party's will.

Superdelegates are an extension of this. We take a certain number of highly visible party members -- politicians and well-known activists -- and give them the option to speak for the party rather than for a constituency. Again, the point as far as I can see it is to treat the party as a social organism and let it grow into the image of its most interested and involved members.

Josiah · 1 year ago

...I should also point out, as a further point, that I prefer the Republican party's system of winner-takes-all. It seems to delineate a winner more quickly and decisively. That being said, I have a suspicion that if my preferences for how the system should work were used, it is likely that my preferred candidate would not be chosen.