So I was quite surprised to find out that the Democratic Party had 796 superdelegates who did not have to vote according to the voice of the people. Rather, these "party leaders and elected officials" can choose whichever candidate they want. If these superdelegates are basically allowed to determine who the Democrats elect to run against John McCain, then democracy is definitely held up in the America. America is a nation ruled by the consent of the governed, and these delegates don't have to follow the governed's feelings. How can they ever begin to purport that they are part of the democratic process? Superdelegates need to abolished because they devalue the votes of the American public and makes a farce of the voting process - what is the point of voting if your vote can be overruled by some unpledged delegate? There is none, and if American seeks to retain its position as the most transparent, most representative, and most desirable democracy in the world, then it will ban superdelegates from participating in the national nominating conventions.
What also makes no sense in general is the use of nominating conventions. Political parties don't need conventions and delegates; all they have to do is count the popular vote for each candidate and see who has the most. This is especially true for the Republican Party, which has a winner-take-all program in the state primaries. Why should the people's voice be suppressed? Nominating conventions are the vestiges of a "smoke-filled backroom" scenario when party bosses got together and decided who would run - we, the American people, need to abolish all of this crass suppression of the democratic voice of the people. So my point is: abolish nominating conventions, and if not, then at the very least superdelegates.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I completely agree with you. I think that the electors not only complicate matters and make it un-democratic like you said, but also discourage Americans from voting. There are far too many people out there who still think that their vote doesn't count, even though we have seen that this isn't really the case with how close the last election was.
?
Anyway, I don't know, why were electors created in the first place? Perhaps to generalize the popular vote and make the numbers smaller to count? I suppose I can't really have a valid opinion on that. I do completely agree with you on the Superdelegates though. I think that they are ridiculous and for the exact reason you said!
Down with the superdelegates! Maybe someday,
:kaitlyn:
well electors were created before universal public education, so people were stupid and could easily be misled by a demagogue...so the smart people decided for the stupid - that could be wrong, undemocratic also
but now we are all literate, so its diffferent..
If I can save one heart from breaking, I shall not live in vain. - Emily Dickinson