No argument here. And for the record, while I said I tend to vote Democratic, I haven't voted Republican since Bush 2 taking office for his first term.
In theory I may not like the idea of superdelegates but in practice they've never actually changed who the eventual nominee was. This time, for instance, Clinton got the most regular votes, and take away superdelegates and she still would have won. Superdelegates only would really come into play if it was a very close race, and nobody got a majority of the votes, as looked possible this year for the Republicans. The idea for Democrats was to create sort of a "curatorial committee" that would reject a briefly popular but unqualified candidate, and nominate someone more sensible, even if he or she only got the second or third most votes. And if Trump proves to be an unmitigated disaster – which seems more than possible – then it may be the Republicans, ironically, who come to reconsider the wisdom of such a mechanism.
Except that Trump was never "briefly popular". He was easily the front-runner throughout most of the process. So there's that.
I meant "briefly" more along the lines of a single primary season - obviously someone super-briefly popular (like Herman Cain last time) is never going to win a substantial number of primaries and put the party in the position of "do we really want this guy as our standard-bearer?" in the first place. Rightly or wrongly, superdelegates were meant to guard against someone who could have a rise to popularity that could last through a primary season, but would be a terrible choice nonetheless. And yes, that is somewhat undemocratic. Then again, arguably so is the whole primary process as currently constituted - especially giving such outsize influence to Iowa and NH - time after time, cycle after cycle. That's unfair to begin with - they're not particularly representative of the country as a whole demographically, and they always get that role; we don't even spread it around. Anyway, the irony is that the Democratic superdelegates have never actually come into play in their primaries, and it may be the Republicans wishing they'd had them in a couple of years. (Less??)
This. The Old Electoral College Try It should come as no surprise that the left complains so vociferously about the Electoral College. Their objections go deeper than the results of the most recent election. Since the days of Woodrow Wilson, progressives have been on a crusade to do away with the blended nature of our Constitution. What conservatives see as a prudent compromise vindicated by history, progressives see as a problem. Thus, they prefer to read Congress's enumerated powers as a plenary grant of authority; they disdain the filibuster and other devices that grant minorities a role in the day-to-day functions of government; and they attack the Electoral College, as we have seen again the last two weeks. These complaints are all of a piece: They wish to undo the federal-national compromise that is at the very heart of our union. (snip) Still, liberal bellyaching should serve as a good reminder of the philosophical divide between liberals and conservatives. As Diamond wrote (back in 1977), "It is hard to think of a worse time than the present, when so much already tends toward excessive centralization, to strike an unnecessary blow at the federal quality of our political order." The left wants an all-powerful national government, at the center of which sits the president, the living embodiment of the national will. Conservatives, following the guidance of the Framers, should view the president primarily as the chief magistrate of the nation. He is not to be an omnipotent tribune of the people. In our system, no single agent occupies such a rarefied position. Instead, Congress is the most reflective of the popular will, and it is charged with exercising enumerated powers. The remainder are retained by the states and the people.
Also this thread (same author adding a few comments). I think the Electoral College is a reminder that we make too much of what this government is suppose to be. This government was never meant to represent the national will that liberals since Wilson (and TBH conservatives since Reagan) wish. Just about the only Framer at the Convention who wanted something like that was James Wilson. Not Madison. CERTAINLY not Hamilton. The final compromise was one of limited national authority under a model of blended sovereignty. The EC is sensible through that lens.
