I've finally achieved consistency in my life. Any person of average or above intelligence can predict what I will say next with unerring accuracy. And what I say will always be wrong.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

[ItsAllAboutMeMan] Re: [progressive] Should we do away with the superdelegate system?

Somebody needs to school this editorial intern at "Campus Progress", whatever that is.  It's clear from what she says that superdelegates don't make things more democratic, they were put into place to prevent what Chomsky calls "an excess of democracy" - that is, people actually getting what they want.  Yet she says that they are there to make things more democratic - clearly the conclusion you should reach if you want to be a successful intern, which is the first step towards becoming a respectable guardian of respectable opinion.

It seems to me the people's preferred solution would be to jail people who steal elections, and betray the country, and end the practice of crooks pardoning each other, instead of instituting new policies that prevent the democratic selection of superior candidates.  But then, we (the people) didn't institute the superdelegate system, and it's hard to see what role we could play in doing away with it.

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:06 PM, lilgeorgiehas2go <lilgeorgiehas2go@yahoo.com> wrote:

I found this interesting article at campusprogress.org.  It's a question we all need to address.  Put aside the contest between Senators Obama and Clinton for the moment and think about the bigger picture (and the future of our nominating process).  Is the superdelegate system elitist?  Is it fair?  Does it help or hurt?  Do the pros outweigh the cons? 
 
Here's the article.  What do you think?
 
 

Why Superdelegates Exist

They're supposed to make the Democratic presidential nominating process more democratic, not less.

By Brittany Schulman
April 9, 2008

As the lengthy Democratic nominating system drags on, the party's process of picking a presidential candidate has come under scrutiny. In particular, the criticism—which has ranged from constructive to nasty—has focused on the party's superdelegates, current or former party leaders who help pick the nominee but aren't required to follow the will of primary voters.

While complaints about the "undemocratic" nature of superdelegates have existed for years, the neck-in-neck nature of this year's race has brought the issue to the forefront of the national conversation. Paul Rockwell of CommonDreams.org noted that "many young voters are discovering that there are two kinds of delegates at Democratic Party Conventions: real delegates (duly elected from the states) and fake delegates, delegates artificially created by the Democratic National Committee."MoveOn.org has petitioned superdelegates to wait for all voters to express their preferences before making decisions themselves—a move that would allow them to "support the people's choice." Within the blogosphere, supporters of Barack Obama attack superdelegates regularly. And Nation Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel has labeled the institution tyrannical and has argued that the system needs to be reformed.

But while many today are arguing that the superdelegate system is undemocratic, it is important to note that the institution was originally created to make the party's presidential nominating process more democratic, not less. So before Democrats reform or abolish the system outright, it's important to understand what, exactly, superdelegates are, and why they exist in the first place.

What are superdelegates?

A superdelegate is essentially a member of the Democratic Party who is entitled to cast a vote at the Democratic National Convention for his or her presidential candidate of choice. This year, the Democratic superdelegates include 27 governors, all Democratic members of Congress, and 23 elder statesmen or higher ranking officials. The other half is made up of the members of the Democratic National Committee—former politicians or active players in the party throughout the country. Together, superdelegates will make up 20 percent of the delegates at the Democratic National Convention, or 796 of the total 4,049 delegates. The other 80 percent, of course, are determined by states' primaries. When added together, the candidate who receives a majority of delegates, or at least 2,025 total, wins the national primary and becomes the party's nominee.

The primary election system as we know it didn't exist before 1972; in fact, only 13 states held elections in the 1968 presidential contest. The winning candidate, Hubert H. Humphrey, was chosen mostly by the party machine that year, and his defeat—he lost the popular vote by less than one percent—only discouraged the general Democratic populace. In 1972, Senator George McGovern, who would later become a presidential nominee himself, led a committee that encouraged states to adopt the primary system for the upcoming election. While McGovern was successful in persuading most states to make the switch, he failed miserably in the general election, beating Richard Nixon in only Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts. Many accredited the 1972 Democratic defeat to the new primary system. Thus, in 1980, the Democratic Party established the superdelegate system to give a little bit of power back to active and former members of the party. The superdelegate institution has been in place ever since, for better or worse.

Defense against radical candidates

One major defense of the superdelegate system is protection against more "radical" candidates. For example, a reader at Talking Points Memo has pointed out that superdelegates are a defense against fringe candidates that capture popular imagination but would be disastrous for the party. Even though it is clear that most fringe candidates do not accrue much of the popular vote in the primary process, the superdelegate system is in place on the off chance that this does occur. The superdelegates of the party could prevent a radical candidate from winning the nomination.

The party advocates for the ability to protect itself in the event that the leading Democratic candidate is perceived to be incapable of winning the popular vote. For example, if only the most active—and liberal—members of the Democratic Party voted in the primary one year, they might choose a very liberal candidate. However, if the superdelegates—tried-and-true party stalwarts—felt that this person was too radical to win the popular vote, they would have the ability to elect someone else.

Defense against voter fraud

Of course, there's a case to be made that the candidate who wins the popular vote within the party deserves the nomination. However, the elimination of superdelegates could bring about an opportunity for voter fraud. A significant number of states, including Alabama, Georgia, and Michigan have open primaries, and even more states feature partially open contents. In these instances, individuals who do not identify as Democrats can cross party lines and vote for Republican (or third party) interests in the confines of Democratic primary. Superdelegates are the most effective tool the Democratic Party has to prevent these malevolent interlopers from tipping the party's nomination.

Defense against scandal

Over at TPM, a reader also makes the case that superdelegates are a safety valve for the party in the event of a scandal. The first primaries and caucuses are held months before the actual Democratic National Convention. During this period of time, a scandal could break and damage the leading candidate's standing in the general election. While this has yet to happen, the history of scandalous politicians is hard to ignore. President Bill Clinton was able to ward off the Gennifer Flowers scandal that broke during the 1992 primary season. But, had Clinton been unable to successfully execute a damage control campaign, superdelegates could have altered their decision to ensure the Democrats were nominating a viable general election candidate.

The American political system is based on the concept of `checks and balances,' and the superdelegate system functions as simply another check within the minor confines of the political party apparatus. At its core, it is a safety valve for the protection of the party. Are their inherent biases in the system? Yes, but it also may be a necessary evil.

Brittany Schulman is an Editorial Intern at Campus Progress.


__._,_.___
10 Day Club

on Yahoo! Groups

Share the benefits

of a high fiber diet.

Moderator Central

Yahoo! Groups

Get the latest news

from the team.

Y! Groups blog

the best source

for the latest

scoop on Groups.

.

__,_._,___

[ItsAllAboutMeMan] Fwd: [iChat] (ralph) nader.org on libraries/sports stadiums

I'm trying to commit intellectual "suicide by list manager" on that list.  I'm bored with it.  The problem isn't that the country is being run by pirates and thugs, the problem is that people refuse to mount an effective resistance to pirates and thugs, and they turn on people who have spent their entire careers "fighting the power."

Libraries are getting it about as bad as anybody anywhere, and librarians are acting just as you'd expect from the stereotypes - and library students are worse.  They just want to get jobs in the field when they graduate, so they all hunker down and shut their mouths, and few ever talk about the real circumstances of the profession. I'm glad I don't have to.  I feel sorry for them.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: matt love <mattlove1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [iChat] (ralph) nader.org on libraries/sports stadiums
To: ichat@u.washington.edu


This is why all the "progressives" on the political lists I'm on say that Nader is a crazy egomaniac, "worse than Bush" - even "as bad as Hitler" - because the Democratic frontrunners won't do a thing to antagonize the monied interests, and people hate to be reminded of how things really are.

How Seattle's priorities?  How heavily is the public subsidizing the playthings of one of the local "information" billionaires?

I remember hearing a call-in program on KUOW where a construction worker called in to comment on the inefficiencies of the Koolhaas library, and Seattle's librarian said coldly that in the economic climate we were enjoying then (and I'm sure it's no better now) "he was lucky to have a job."

That's when I knew I didn't want to work in that library system. In fact, at that point I decided I didn't want to work in a library at all.


On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Scott Dalessandro <daless@u.washington.edu> wrote:
In case you're interested, link is for the same text below.
-Scott D.

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1265-Stadiums,-Libraries-and-Taxpayers.html

Baseball, Libraries and Taxpayers

There used to be a time when baseball parks were built by private
investors—usually a wealthy local family—and the stands were full of
what used to be called the "masses."

There used to be a time when libraries were maintained and stocked as
an integral part of the neighborhood and community. Not a single
library closed in America due to the great economic depression of the
nineteen thirties.

As illustrated so elaborately in Washington D.C. last week, the
"gleaming new baseball stadium" temporarily named "Nationals Park" for
the local major league baseball team, opened with $ 611 million
dollars—mostly taxpayers money—going into its constructions. A
Washington Post editorial crowed that the stadium was built "on time
and within budget." Why not? The cost came in at twice the estimate
five years ago and its frantic construction pace reflected the
priorities of the nation's capital.

Consider one aspect of this "tale of two cities"—the depleted and
disrepaired condition of the main Martin Luther King Library and its
twenty six neighborhood branches. The annual budget last year was only
$33 million. Four of the branches were shut down for remodeling or
rebuilding three and a half years ago. The money has been
appropriated. But with the sites being eyed by avaricious developers
for "multi-use" complexes, among other reasons, the residents still do
not have operating libraries. "On time and within budget" is not even
on the radar.

Now I ask you—what is the most appropriate, profound, and respectful
use of tax dollars? A ballpark built for mega-millionaire owners who
could have raised their own capital? Or "gleaming new libraries" which
edify a metropolis and play a critical role in educational, civic and
urban renewal?

The question would answer itself were the decision made by local
referendum. Polls continually showed that the disenfranchised people
of the District of Columbia opposed a taxpayer-funded professional
ballpark. The new mayor Adrian Fenty made this opposition a major
issue in his improbable run for that office in 2006.

There is little doubt that the people would have preferred to use that
$611 million (and other estimates are higher) for library renovations
and acquisitions as well as neighborhood recreational facilities for
participatory sports by all ages. Studies have shown that after school
programs at libraries help children learn better and participatory
sports—indoor and outdoor—keep physically exercised youngsters from
getting into street trouble.

Nationals Park opened to great fanfare this past weekend, hailed by
page after page of coverage in excruciating detail by the Washington
Post. Would that this major newspaper devote such attention to the
details of 27 library buildings, many of them crumbling and
dysfunctional, in its home town.

When Post opinion writer Marc Fisher did devote two columns to the
library's plight in 2002, it helped spark our D.C. Library Renaissance
Project, headed by Robin Diener. With library-minded citizens, this
Project has brought more public attention, an increased budget and
some improvement in the D.C. Library system, long considered to be in
the bottom tier of library systems in major American cities.

When power is concentrated in the hands of the few, it's small wonder
that priorities are inverted to the level of the grotesque. Our
national capital has been undergoing one of the biggest commercial
building booms in its history. Cranes are busy everywhere, except for
building the schools, libraries, clinics and neighborhood parks. Real
estate developers and their customary allies—banks, mortgage firms,
corporate law firms and trade associations—dominate. Not the people,
who cannot even have the right to vote for two Senators and a
Representative having full voting power in the Congress.

In its March 28, 2008 special, ten page section on Nationals Park, the
Washington Post printed a full page "Letter to Nats Fans" by the
team's owners, the Lerner family. They profusely thanked the Mayor,
the DC City Council, the corporate-welfare promoter called the DC
Sports and Entertainment Commission, along with the construction
firms, consultants, and workers.

Remarkably absent from their list of gratitude were the D.C. taxpayers
who paid for the building that will make the Lerners and their
partners even more wealthy. (These owners are in arbitration over
their demand that the taxpayers even pay for the uniforms of the
multi-millionaire ball players!)

The Lerners, in all decency, should name the stadium "Taxpayers
Stadium." Instead, they are shopping around the corporate groves for a
company to pay to put its name on the building instead of its present
"Nationals Park" designation.

Once again the boosteristic Washington Post headlined "Millions Ride
on Nats' Naming Rights." It is the Lerners who get the millions, but
Mark Lerner shared a worry, during an interview with the Post reporter
while looking around the Park.

"It's going to be a huge and expensive task between the signs on the
roadways, and all the signs in here—all these neon signs. It's going
to cost a fortune—when the time comes," he declared.

D.C. taxpayers are left to wonder who will pay for replacing these
Nationals Park signs? They better check the fine print.

END

_______________________________________________
iChat mailing list
iChat@u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/ichat


__._,_.___
Yahoo! Groups

Wellness Spot

A resource for Curves

and weight loss.

Weight Loss Group

on Yahoo! Groups

Get support and

make friends online.

Yahoo! Groups

Balance your life

by learning how to

make smart choices.

.

__,_._,___

Sunday, April 06, 2008

[ItsAllAboutMeMan] RIP

Best of Y! Groups

Discover groups

that are the best

of their class.

John McEnroe

on Yahoo! Groups

Join him for the

10 Day Challenge.

Moderator Central

Get answers to

your questions about

running Y! Groups.

.

__,_._,___