I don't mind it. They are the heads of the party and they don't have all the choice. People vote and everyone decides. The electoral college is really dumb
The electoral college only seems dumb to people who don't understand the constitutional role of the president (or much else about the constitution for that matter).
You sure that opposition to the electoral college doesn't have more to do with the effective disenfranchisement of those who are in the political minority of states which aren't in play? That's the big issue here, and to dismiss it completely is ridiculous. To do so while calling people who disagree ignorant is especially hard to understand.
You shouldn't get a greater say in the direction of our country because you live in the boonies. That makes absolutely no sense. You should win the Presidency because a plurality of all Americans voted for you, not because of the votes based on some arbitrarily determined voting subsets.
There is one thing more stupid than both the Electoral College and the Super Delegates. Its that we've pushed the primaries so far ahead that candidates are now campaigning for nearly two whole years. That's half the term the winner will serve. We should be holding the primaries in September and the general in November.
It isn't a perfect system. But it's the best in the world. Sounds like some Al Gore hangers-on just can't let go.
Has anyone on here defined Super Delegates? Sounds like everyone knows. My understanding was that each state designated the number (or portion) of their delegation that would not be elected in caucuses, but are usually appointed by the State Party. For example in Texas since the Gov and both Sens are each Pubs, then the head of the State Party plus each of the Reps are automatically designated. Am I any where close to correct? Hook'em!!!
The Electoral College is awesome. Superdelegates are retarded. So are caucuses and all other non-secret ballot elections.
Something I left out: the framers did not anticipate the winner-take-all system that would begin to take hold in 1832. At first the electors weren't even selected by popular vote in most states - the state leges did it. By 1832 all but SC had a popular vote for electors, although even then the winner-take-all system was not in place - some states used a districting system. The WTA system was fully realized in 1936 as districting states thought they were at a disadvantage to those which had WTA. The decision to go with the EC actually reflected compromises along three fault lines: between large and small states, free and slave states, and those favoring direct election and those wanting congressional selection of the president (my wouldn't that be fun). Federalism wasn't the issue, those major differences were. Maybe your conflating federalism with apportionment (which has federal consequences to be sure, just not federalist ones). The fact that there was a big state/small state divide that needed bridging certainly speaks to that latter issue. And I need to correct myself slightly. Those who favored indirect election actually had the fear of uninformed voters in mind as opposed to whimsy in mind - similar fear, but slightly different. Re-reading No. 68 jolted back that little nuance.
I realize this thread has been hijacked by a discussion of the EC, but I'd still like someone (please ) give me a definition of the Super Delegates. Thank you and good night. Hook'em!!!
The EC works. I am not sure what all the fuss is about anyway. There has only been TWO TIMES in our history that the EC and popular vote were not the same. Do you really think many elections would have changed? If it were about popular vote then the candidates would campaign in California, Texas, NY, Florida and maybe another big city or two. GWB even said if it were a popular vote then he would have campaigned in Texas more in 2000.
