'Murica! (246 Viewers)

Seven

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
#2,082
Jun 25, 2003
39,318
#2,082
Dru said:
You been following the Iowa caucuses from the other side of the world?
Click to expand...
I think most people do. Personally I follow this type of stuff because I'm rather fond of the US, but also because one cannot deny that they have a global impact. BTW I think Americans vastly underestimate just how well liked Obama was and how much Trump is hated in Europe / the rest of the world.
 
Ronn

Ronn

Mes Que Un Club
#2,083
May 3, 2012
20,865
#2,083
icemaη;5190236 said:
20% of the delegates being superdelegates is crazy. Even if Sanders does well in a close race, his run will mean nothing if the superdelegates decide to make Hilary the candidate (which half of them have apparently decided to).
I haven't given a thought to election procedures outside my country before, so it's incredibly fascinating how the process of choosing a candidate to stand for election is varied by party and by state. And I'm guessing it has varied a lot over time as well.
Click to expand...
Yes it has changed a lot. For instance, until mid 20th century you need two third of the delegates to win the nomination for Dems, which was pretty hard to achieve. So party machinery would decide through backroom deals who wins the nomination. Another crazy story is 1912 republican primary, in which Teddy Roosevelt won most of the primaries. But many southern states did not even hold primaries, so President Taft made sure to fill delegates from those states with his supporters. Roosevelt lost even though he was clearly the more popular one. His delegates left the convention and started a 3rd party called progressive party. 3rd party challenge made sure that Woodrow Wilson, Dems nominee, win the election easily. That kind of thing won't happen now.
I don't what the right percentage for superdelegates should be, but I know making everything very democratic is not that good either. Superdelegates are basically some party safeguard that makes sure that the party direction don't swing violently with voters change of hearts. A political party is there to provide some stability to the political system. If everything is to be decided by direct vote, there wouldn't be any need for a party anyway.
 
Ocelot

Ocelot

Midnight Marauder
#2,084
Jul 13, 2013
18,943
#2,084
To be fair, the whole election process in the US is ridiculously flawed.

It can all be very well explained historically, but it's an afwul design when looked at objectively.
 
Enron

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
#2,096
Oct 11, 2005
75,659
#2,096
RIP Rand

- - - Updated - - -

Ocelot said:
To be fair, the whole election process in the US is ridiculously flawed.

It can all be very well explained historically, but it's an afwul design when looked at objectively.
Click to expand...
Iowa makes no fucking sense. Considering the caucus process was started in the 1970s.
 
Ocelot

Ocelot

Midnight Marauder
#2,097
Jul 13, 2013
18,943
#2,097
Enron said:
RIP Rand

- - - Updated - - -



Iowa makes no fucking sense. Considering the caucus process was started in the 1970s.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that primary system inevitable gives way too much weight to whatever state(s) is/are the first to vote.

And the whole "first past the post system" in the general elections, which basically means that 80% of the states are foregone conclusions and ~10 states decide on the president effictively by themselves. Oh, and it makes viable 3rd party candidates impossible.

I mean I get that the US-system was once the most progressive democracy in the world, but it's been horribly outdated for decades now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 18, Guests: 206)

  • ... and 14 more.