Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumSuper Delegates: Perfectly Legal And Quite Democratic
Last edited Mon Apr 11, 2016, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)
Super delegates. People love to say that they're "undemocratic," or that they should reflect the will of the voters within a state, rather than being independent votes untied to any election result, etc.
Well, the SCOTUS thinks differently, and is on record supporting a political party's right to control its own nominating process.
This was adjudicated by the SCOTUS back 2000 when it struck down California's blanket primary system (CA Democratic Party v Jones).
In that case - which saw a 7-2 decision by the SCOTUS - the SCOTUS found that a blanket primary violated a political party's right of association, as guaranteed in the First Amendment. The Court found that "Proposition 198 forces political parties to associate withto have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined bythose who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival. A single election in which the party nominee is selected by nonparty members could be enough to destroy the party." The majority opinion went on to say that Proposition 198 takes away a party's "basic function" to choose its own leaders and is functionally "both severe and unnecessary."
At the time, the SF Gate reported:
"The Supreme Court struck down California's system of "blanket primaries" yesterday, ruling that political parties have the right to exclude nonparty members from the process of choosing their candidates.
"The 7-to-2 decision invalidates state election rules -- in place since 1998 -- that permitted voters, regardless of party affiliation, to vote for candidates of any party.
"Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said forcing the parties to honor the votes of nonmembers amounted to a "stark repudiation of freedom of political association," and violated a party's ability to control its own nominating process and define its identity."
If political parties have the right to exclude non-party members from choosing their candidates, they certainly have the right to "control their own nominating process" as noted in the SCOTUS ruling. Super delegates are simply a way that a political party tries to control its own nominating process.
CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)Really, Sadners' movement and the Tea Party were just examples of the "I'm too lazy to do the work, so I'll try to steal your brand instead of building my own" mentality.
stopbush
(24,397 posts)Now, THAT would be an honest way to go about securing a nomination.
I'd also mention that the Ds having super delegates certainly follows the intent of allowing a political party to "define its identity." It's a way for the Ds to say, no, we are NOT a socialist party, and we have put in place a mechanism to counter any attempt to make us into a socialist party, because we get to define our identity, not an outsider.
Iamaartist
(3,300 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)elections open to the general population didn't occur till early in the 1900's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary
Cha
(297,812 posts)Last I heard he was going after them.
They're quite Democratic.. what isn't are caucuses that aren't easy for disabled or working Dems to attend.
Or trying to subvert the Dem voters in Clark County, Nevada who voted for Hillary. Have the these kids protested that?!!!!
Or are they just to blinded by empty promises to care?