Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is getting rather irritating to see posters continually yap about the 'will of the people' in these primaries.
We must recall, that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are private organizations. They are not chartered by the Constitution. Each party has developed and operates their own system of procedures concerning how they select their nominee for President of the United States of America. Many Americans do not vote in these primaries, since they do not identify with either party.
To date, the Republican party appears to have settled on Donald John Trump, while the Democratic party will chose Hillary Rodham Clinton. If the private Democratic party wishes to establish 'super delegates', they are free to do so. It represents the 'will' of the private Democratic party. Indeed, the private Republican party is free to change its rules prior to Cleveland to make it more difficult for Mr. Trump to secure the party's nomination. A Federal court would decline to intervene, since it is a private organization.
I will note that I never seem to see people talking about the Libertarian Party (another private organization), or their upcoming presidential convention on May 27th (in Orlando), or how Mr. Gary Johnson appears to have said nomination 'locked up' for the second consecutive time, despite some seemingly 18 people (including Mr. Johnson) up for nomination.
They are the People's delegates, who stand at the ready to help workers if they make voting mistakes.
If you don't like them, you are in opposition to the Party and to democratic socialism.
Since you are not a registered D, I fail to see why this is an issue for you.
I don't give a flying flip how the NRA elects its officers or decides which lobbyists to hire or which legislation to support or which programs they will fund. Their business.
We must recall, that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are private organizations.
And they absolutely rely on the taxpayer funded state boards of elections. So this argument falls flat on it's face. When the taxpayer and government is involved, there is an absolute expectation, demand, and even legal argument that ALL elections are fair to all involved.
The political parties can't just treat the vote from 10s of millions of people, like pawns in a chess game. If they try, then they will get slapped down because the people won't stand for it.
The Super Delegates are now being exposed for what they are. Nothing more than a tool to usurp the vote of the people. Hillary has demonstrated, for the 2nd time in a row, that she can't be nominated without their support. As I said earlier, should could have disavowed the entire rigged nature of their existence, and demanded the rules be changed to make it straight election for the nomination.
Of course we all know why she didn't and it's come back to haunt her.
Your argument is weak as it turns out that both Don the Nut and Hillary will win the majority of voters in their parties.
I do not understand why a state party would open it's primary to non-members. They are after all are private groups. Even large business requires you to be a stock holder (1).
And they absolutely rely on the taxpayer funded state boards of elections. So this argument falls flat on it's face. When the taxpayer and government is involved, there is an absolute expectation, demand, and even legal argument that ALL elections are fair to all involved.
The political parties can't just treat the vote from 10s of millions of people, like pawns in a chess game. If they try, then they will get slapped down because the people won't stand for it.
The Super Delegates are now being exposed for what they are. Nothing more than a tool to usurp the vote of the people. Hillary has demonstrated, for the 2nd time in a row, that she can't be nominated without their support. As I said earlier, should could have disavowed the entire rigged nature of their existence, and demanded the rules be changed to make it straight election for the nomination.
Of course we all know why she didn't and it's come back to haunt her.
I think you are confused. Generally, in my understanding, some State Board of Elections will provide taxpayer money for state-level elections, not national level.
I could not find anyplace that spoke of states (like Texas, for instance) providing public funding for the national parties. For candidates running for state office, yes, but not national office. If you have information about this, I would be glad to see it.
I would be willing to bet that, should Donald John Trump lose the election in November, and take down with him some House and Senate seats, the RNC may well consider super-delegates.
I think you are confused. Generally, in my understanding, some State Board of Elections will provide taxpayer money for state-level elections, not national level.
All elections in the USA, even those for President, are state level elections. A read of the US Constitution confirms this.
The USA does not have Federal elections.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
