Originally posted by |King Joker|
Gotta love how Bernie beats Hillary by 20 points in Colorado yet she gets the same amount of delegates via super delegates. Democracy FTW!
This weird idea has been raised before.
Where did you get the impression that part of democracy is the absolute choice over who a party nominates for an election? That's nothing to do with democracy at all- it's an internal matter for the party. They are under no obligation to allow the public any say in it at all.
It is not actually normal in the western world for nominees for head of government/head of state to be democratically decided. Democracy is about voting for nominated candidates, not voting for who gets nominated to be voted for.
Frankly, letting people choose nominees is a bad idea. We just had Labour in the UK shoot themselves in the foot with a new system that allowed too much public participation, and now the Republicans in the US have the same nightmare.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Which is corrupt
Are you saying that parties choosing their own nominees is corrupt?
If so- that's utterly wrong. There is nothing remotely corrupt about that process; there is something very presumptuous about a demand that the public have thee power to choose nominees.
Yes. How dare the people who have to live under the presidency of whoever gets elected wish to have more of a choice on who they are electing.
How dare people wish for a candidate not supported by the establishment to become president.
How dare people believe a very small minority of the population selecting the only candidates that have a real shot at winning would be a terrible idea.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Are you saying that parties choosing their own nominees is corrupt?If so- that's utterly wrong. There is nothing remotely corrupt about that process; there is something very presumptuous about a demand that the public have thee power to choose nominees.
Why isn't it presumptuous that a few people decide who we can or can't vote for?
Yes, exactly, how dare. How dare people presume they have the right to order PRIVATE PARTIES who they can and cannot NOMINATE for elected office.
What kind of ridiculous, messed-up mob-rule forced control world are you imagining here where YOU have the absolute right to say "Sorry, you are not allowed to represent your own party to stand for President, even though you are the one your party, a private organisation, wishes to put forwards"? Who in the hell gave you the idea that that was the electorate's business?
Your democratic right is to vote for who gets INTO office, not for who is allowed to stand for election in the first place. Your idea is actually monstrously UN democratic. You seriously need to get a better idea of civics.
If you don't want someone supported by the establishment to become President then do not vote for him. If you don't like anyone offered by the major parties, vote for another candidate. If you are complaining that people you vote fr have no chance of winning- then again, you need to check how 'Democracy' works.
Originally posted by Surtur
Why isn't it presumptuous that a few people decide who we can or can't vote for?
They don;t decide who you can and cannot vote for- you can vote for anyone you like. They decide who THEY are going to present as THEIR nominated candidate for your consideration.
Is this really the state of democratic awareness in US circles these days?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yes. How dare the people who have to live under the presidency of whoever gets elected wish to have more of a choice on who they are electing.How dare people wish for a candidate not supported by the establishment to become president.
How dare people believe a very small minority of the population selecting the only candidates that have a real shot at winning would be a terrible idea.
Then they should start a party and gather a following. If a candidate does not fit with the mission statement of a party, the party should by no means be required to give that candidate their platform and resources.
But see a nomination from them comes with a lot of oomph though. That is the problem. You need to be wealthy to even successfully run a campaign, or you need to get money from the small percentage of people in the country who can afford to give it.
Thus, whose needs are more likely to be listened to?
Oomph is not mind control. If people vote for people with oomf, that is democracy at work.
If you want to take big money out of US politics, then fine- but don't pretend that big money does anything other than get you populism, so arguing against big money nominations is asking for people to be less involved in choosing the nominee.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Having a minority of people select the only candidates who have a shot of winning is not democratic, it's oligarchic.
Nonsense. It is oligarchic only if people are given no choice in the matter (and if the potential oligarchs controlled the election itself, which they do not). But people can vote for whomever they like. If they only want to vote for main party candidates, that IS democracy.
Anyone, effectively, can run for President- but people only want to vote for people working with a mechanism.