Friday, February 22, 2008

Crooked Democrats

I wrote earlier about the Democratic [sic] Party's equivalent of the electoral college and the rigged presidential nomination process which may well lead to Sen. Hillary Clinton's undemocratic ascension to the party's top slot.

A few people pooh-poohed me as being paranoid. Republicans play dirty, not the saintly Democrats.

Matt's Totally Biased Commentary has a salient reminder of just how crooked the Democrats can be. Rather than fight a battle of ideas with Ralph Nader, Greens and other alternative forces, the Democrats try to bankrupt them.


Mark said...

The Nader lawsuit is absolutely wrong. Clinton trying to seat delegates from FL and MI is a gross violation of the rules her own campaign agreed to. But I'm still having trouble seeing why a hetergenous group of people known as superdelegates are a complete negative as well. Some will vote their conscience, some will vote how the people in their states or districts vote, some will vote on who they think is more electable, and yes, some will vote depending on who might offered a bigger prize. But that's no reason to poo-poo them all.
The delegates, in my mind, have a good purpose, as they are a force that can at times help steer a party towards a better candidate, dependng how you define "better." I don't see why a large, private organization such as a political party should rely only on primary voters to make this sort of decision, especially when so many states have open primaries were technically Independents and Republicans can vote in Democratic primaries.

Brian said...

The whole purpose of the primary and caucus process is designed to pick the candidate that is generally supported by the party members.

I suppose to that extent, I could accept superdelegates from states where non-Democrats participate in the primary.

And I suppose I can see the value of a "council of elders" in cases where, say, you get a bunch of candidates with less than 30 percent and no one with the clear support of the party.

But I'm simply saying that there will be a revolt in the party if Obama wins a clear plurality of the delegates and Hillary gets the nomination. Whether you think they're right or not, the Obama supporters will feel disenfranchised.

That said, I'm trying to think of another large private organization that has anything like this. Can you imagine a corporation doing something like this to its stockholders?

Brian said...

And to be fair, I'm prepared to say that from what I understand, the Green Party's nominating procedures are even more rigged and undemocratic than the Democrats.

Mark said...

"..if Obama wins a clear plurality of the delegates and Hillary gets the nomination."
Yes, in that specific case, I agree Obama supporters will feel cheated, and I wouldn't blame them. All else I can say is that it's a litte early to see how close it will be come convention time.

I believe the bigger theft (and yes, I believe it would be "theft") would be if Hillary s granted delegates from FL and MI. That is a much bigger issue for me than superdelegates, because then she will be clearly violating the rules her own party set.
Heh, the Greens really are that convoluted?