Posted on Feb 22, 2016
Is it fair that Super Delegates are voting for Hillary regardless of the people's choice for Bernie?
16.4K
177
132
15
15
0
Super Delegates have said they are voting for Hillary regardless of what people want. Is this fair to the people who vote? Is the system rigged? Should we do away with Super Delegates?
Democrats
Politics
Election 2016
Hillary Clinton
Bernie Sanders
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 40
3
3
0
Of course it is not fair. As much as I don't like Bernie both he and the voters are about to take it in the rear. Just another example that liberals don't give a crap about the people and will do absolutely anything for power.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I totally agree. I'm not a fan of Sanders but he won NH so he deserves the majority of the delegates. It's quite ironic too for a man who wants to redistribute things to have his OWN "earnings" be redistributed.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
Of course, it's not fair. It's politics as usual, whenever and wherever THE Clintons and the DNC are involved.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Listening to the Republican debates... doesn't sound like any of them think any of the other candidates are fair either.
(1)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski - It's the nastiest game in town, no matter whose side you're on.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Doesn't seem so does it?
The parties are not a part of the government, they exist for their own benefit. It is in the interest of the parties to mute the voice of the people in the primaries. Normally they don't have to be very open about it, this year they may have to be blatant.
The parties are not a part of the government, they exist for their own benefit. It is in the interest of the parties to mute the voice of the people in the primaries. Normally they don't have to be very open about it, this year they may have to be blatant.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Mark Ramos
2LT Tom Waters, JD - I understand that the parties make the rules. But since the states, or many of the states, run the primary elections wouldn't the process be held to the same standards as any activity by the state? Isn't the equal protection clause in the 14th? Wouldn't that apply if some people (Super Delegates) were given a 1-1 vote whereas everyone else had a 1,000-1 vote?
(0)
(0)
Sgt Mark Ramos
2LT Tom Waters, JD - I would agree with you without question if the candidates were still strictly chosen at the national conventions, or through caucuses. But once the states got involved through running and regulating the primaries, I think they are subject to greater scrutiny.
(1)
(0)
CDR Michael Goldschmidt
The Parties are simply power clubs. We get a choice of which power club or Gang gets to rule us, little more. Ours is simply an illusion of freedom. Hopefully, more and more people are awakening to this fact. (Yet Bernie voters don't seem to get that they were cheated. How could their Messiah sell them out?)
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
It's not fair at all, but that is the way the Democrats run their game. Democrats have them, the Republicans don't. It makes perfect sense when you think about it. Democrat philosophy is that there must always be some body of "elders, supervisors, government" that oversees everything and corrects you when your wrong. Republicans believe in personal choice and responsibility.
The Democrats devised a system that will save the party from a candidate that actually believes what they are selling to the public. A candidate like Bernie Sanders.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/223647/superdelegate-101-interview
The Democrats devised a system that will save the party from a candidate that actually believes what they are selling to the public. A candidate like Bernie Sanders.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/223647/superdelegate-101-interview
A primer for Democratic-party watchers.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Not only is it not fair but It's the exact opposite of how it should be.......You should be BOUND by how your constituents vote. No one should be given the power to vote any way they want, regardless of how the people put them in office voted....It's criminal if you ask me. Basically legal voter fraud!....BTW, in answer to ? NO/YES/YES
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
Who wants to know? Democrats? Can't they decide what's fair and eliminate the practice if it isn't fair? Or don't the rank and file of the Democratic Party have any control over their party leadership and its processes? Maybe, fair or not, this is the system they want.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Cpl Matthew Wall - Corporal; Please define "fair". "The system" is the one that the Democrat party adopted and they are playing by their own rules. It may not be fair that you cannot move your checkers onto the red squares, but that is one of the rules of the game and you have to play by those rules until you can get the "Checker Players Federation" to change them so that they are the way that you want to see them.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
2LT Tom Waters, JD - Lieutenant; At least we are now talking about "subjectively fair" rather than "objectively fair".
Personally I prefer "I don't like it." to "subjectively unfair" and also prefer "I like it." to "subjectively fair".
Face it, it isn't any more "fair" that a "right-wing Republican" should be represented by a "left-wing Democrat" than it is that a "left-wing Democrat" should be represented by a "right-wing Republican" but that happens all the time and no one seriously considers that a "representative democracy operating in a republic" is an "unfair" form of government. (Admittedly it might not be as "fair" as some would like, but, equally, it could be "more unfair" than some people think it is at present.)
Personally I prefer "I don't like it." to "subjectively unfair" and also prefer "I like it." to "subjectively fair".
Face it, it isn't any more "fair" that a "right-wing Republican" should be represented by a "left-wing Democrat" than it is that a "left-wing Democrat" should be represented by a "right-wing Republican" but that happens all the time and no one seriously considers that a "representative democracy operating in a republic" is an "unfair" form of government. (Admittedly it might not be as "fair" as some would like, but, equally, it could be "more unfair" than some people think it is at present.)
(1)
(0)
Cpl Matthew Wall
Fair as in the sense that the people go out to vote and their candidate isn't being picked. More people vote for Sanders, but the Delegates have already said they don't care and are picking Billary. That isn't what their party wants, but the establishment doesn't care what their people want. Never have. But they talk a good talk and the sheeple follow.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Cpl Matthew Wall - What's not"fair"is winner takes all states. That's the major disenfranchisement in the system.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Matthew Wall - Corporal; Considering that (generally) more people CO NOT vote for a candidate than do vote for a candidate, then (under the current electoral structure) you'd have a lot of seats sitting empty if a candidate was required to get more than 50% of the votes. If you wanted to increase the requirement to "more than 50% of the votes of the entire class of eligible voters" you'd have nothing but empty seats.
MCPO Roger Collins - Master Chief; Translated to the local level, your position would mean that every candidate for office would end up getting elected (but only being able to take the single seat available on a 'pro rata' basis [i.e. if John SMITH [R] got 45% of the votes, while Jane DOE [D] got 35% of the vote, and Hank BLOW [I] got 20% of the votes - then SMITH would sit for 45 days out of 100, DOE would sit for 35 days out of 100, and BLOW would sit for 20 days out of 100. This would mean that the rotation would look something like SMITH, DOE, SMITH, DOE, BLOW, SMITH, DOE, SMITH, DOE, SMITH, SMITH, DOE, SMITH, DOE, BLOW, ... {please have some consideration for the poor, overworked legislative clerks who have to keep track of who is allowed to be voting on any given day}].
MCPO Roger Collins - Master Chief; Translated to the local level, your position would mean that every candidate for office would end up getting elected (but only being able to take the single seat available on a 'pro rata' basis [i.e. if John SMITH [R] got 45% of the votes, while Jane DOE [D] got 35% of the vote, and Hank BLOW [I] got 20% of the votes - then SMITH would sit for 45 days out of 100, DOE would sit for 35 days out of 100, and BLOW would sit for 20 days out of 100. This would mean that the rotation would look something like SMITH, DOE, SMITH, DOE, BLOW, SMITH, DOE, SMITH, DOE, SMITH, SMITH, DOE, SMITH, DOE, BLOW, ... {please have some consideration for the poor, overworked legislative clerks who have to keep track of who is allowed to be voting on any given day}].
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
All of our systems are rigged. Those same Superdrlegates that were pledged to Hillary in 2008 voted for Obama. Nothing is decided until November.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Maj Werner Saemmler-Hindrichs - Sanders can only win if most (a significant majority) super delegates switch their allegiance, which is unlikely.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Maj Werner Saemmler-Hindrichs - The dirigible hanger is a skeleton now, and I believe Google owns it.
Not sure what is on the base, just outside the base is a reserve center with a number of units and a few HQs.
Not sure what is on the base, just outside the base is a reserve center with a number of units and a few HQs.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Of course it's fair they're progressive democrats and Socialists. Sharing things that someone earned with someone who didn't earn them is what they strive to achieve. Funny how they begin to bellyache when it is being taken from themselves.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google