“Superdelegate” Is Deceptive
The lamestream media told you:
Despite the number of delegates Democrat candidates might obtain through primary elections, superdelgates at the nominating convention could tip the scales either way. Democrats are afraid this could lead to a candidate with the most popular votes or the most delegates losing to the candidate with the most powerful political machine.
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
“Superdelegate” is a media buzzword designed to disguise the nature of this abnormal candidate selection process. A so-called superdelegate is really just a political activist who manages to obtain a seat at the convention without being elected by anyone.
The media is correct that these political partisans could swing the results. Why the Democrat party — or any party — would want to let a tiny number of influence peddlers select candidates in this manner is hard to justify, though it does allow a sufficiently ruthless candidate with a powerful enough machine to win where defeat would otherwise occur.
| More from Alan Korwin
Stumble It!
March 15th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Alan Korwin,
You’re right “Superdelegate is a deceptive term. I don’t know if they also have a “gender quota” of 50% women, as Democratic primary elections have. Earlier when voting machines were used in Maryland, voter had to select 50% females and males or the mahine would lock. It’s clear violation of 19 the Amendment as you can not list or compel candidates race under 15th Amendment.
The procedure was ruled unconstitutional by District Court Judge Black, but the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed it Richmond.
In Bachur v. Democratic National Party, 836 F.2d 837 (4th Cir. 1987
March 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Supreme Court ruling Leser vs. Garnett (1922) in which the high court held that 19th and 15th Amendments are analogous.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=258&invol=130
March 15th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Leser vs Garnett (1922) in layperson language from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leser_v._Garnett
March 16th, 2008 at 8:11 am
But the political parties are private organizations that can set themselves up to support anyone they wish, in pretty much any way that they wish. Much of the public doesn’t actually get this. I’ve met many people who actually think that the “two party system” is defined in the Constitution and can’t imagine what people in “third parties” are thinking – must just be some wackos. Starting from such a poor knowledge of the political system, it’s very difficult for them to understand how these two unregulated groups have evolved into the criminal gangs they are today – with no other purpose than to maintain power for themselves and steal money from the public.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:28 am
Why the Democrat party — or any party — would want to let a tiny number of influence peddlers select candidates in this manner is hard to justify
Well, duh. It’s to make sure the “little people” (the idiot sheeple) are kept where they belong – sending money and in the dark. This time it’s going to backfire big time (crossing fingers and praying real hard).