Actually, Hillary is no where close in the popular vote.  She gets close if you don't count the states that caucus and count a state where Obama wasn't on the ballot.

The big fight over the supers is that Clinton wants them to overturn the candidate who raises the most money, has the most votes and the most pledged delegates.

Or that Obama is a muslim or that he was present at Trinity Church when Rev. Wright made his "divisive" comments, or that he hates America or...

"BS wrote: " copy what they hear and repeat the same garbage and misinformation over and over again. "  Hmmm. Sounds more like a Republican to me than a Democratic trait."

Wrong.  Case in point....the parroting of the misinformation being spread by the left right here on our own friendly blogs that McCain said he wanted to wage war for 100 years. 

Not true...the left knows it... but keeps repeating it.  And that's just one example.

You realize you're attacking the American way of government if, say, the House votes unanimously for a piece of legislation and the Senate votes it down? How, pray tell, is that different from the unpledged delegates in actuality? Just curious.

BS: you're the one advocating for a strictly popular vote, not me. I'm fully aware of the electoral college and its purposes. It  functions much like our compromise system of a two-house government: pure democracy will not work, much of the time, as it can be difficult to achieve a majority if there are numerous choices, and thus you need more than a House of Representatives. There are indeed special votes codified into law: for example, a Senator's vote is equivalent to a number of Representative votes. And five Supreme Court votes trump everything.

Let us note also that the Republican party, as well, has unpledged delegates, which is the correct term for the perjorative "superdelegate". No election system is perfect...what, pray tell, is the problem with one specific party having its own specific nominating criteria? I'm not the one lambasting the Democratic Party for setting up its own rules to govern itself. Nor am I lambasting the Republican party for its practices. There are delegates who are obligated to vote as per their constitutents. There are delegates who are at liberty to make up their own minds. The pledged delegates outnumber the unpledged, by four to one. Sometimes, the majority is flat wrong. That's known as "mob rule."

By the way, I define "vacuous" as "empty of content"...not stupid. Your original statement was, "anytime there is a highly contested race like the Clinton/Obama one we have now, that the winner is picked by a few people unaccountable to anyone..."

Is that not true of ANY close election, at any level? For example, a few people in Florida, unaccountable to me or to you, essentially decided the 2000 election, if you prefer that story, or, as I feel, five people on the Supreme Court, unaccountable to me and to you, decided the 2000 election, based on the way they decided/voted. Or some combination of the two. And four years ago, some people in Ohio apparently made the difference. That is the point in stating your sentence was "vacuous."

The electoral college system does much the same thing as the pledged and unpledged delegates: some states are winner take all, and some aren't. That's to insure, essentially, that a few large states cannot ram through their choice for national office and override the smaller, less populated states. That is the same reason each state gets two Senators, regardless of population. Remember this: we are not a democracy: we are a democratic republic. We are a blend of two forms of government and there are uneasy compromises to make the best system we can.

My apologies if you felt offended. I stand by my statement and my definition.

BS wrote: " copy what they hear and repeat the same garbage and misinformation over and over again. "

Hmmm. Sounds more like a Republican to me than a Democratic trait.

mattloch, I like the name by the way.

that's an extreme you used in the example but yeah your right we do pick the person that the voters in party favors.

Super delegates are mostly elected officials that are picked. AL ore not in office as far as I know or any other of the others but never the less don't get things confused there is a big difference between elected some one to office and then having someone in an elected office given a delegate vote in the nomination process by being picked by some big wigs in a party.

I can't even believe your arguing with me on this, its pretty shady.

I guess they could always have "winner takes all" primaries and ignore the votes of at least (assuming only a two-candidate race) 49.9% of the voters (like some other parties do), BS. And the national parties have every right to set standards for all state parties to follow, as well as invalidate their vote counts if states don't follow the established rules.
 

Oh, and by the way, the "superdelegates" are in fact chosen by the voters. They are holders of elected offices (gov.s, Congressmen, etc.). They aren't specifically chosen as superdelegates, but that's the role they play in close primaries (such as this one).

It gives more weight to the Montana conservatives than the California liberals, jfrancais.  That's why it's still here.  It's the Republican version of superdelegates.

Why is the popular vote not used and what makes the electoral college more superior?

Vacuous??? really?

Sage I believe the super delegates do want to win, that's not in question but my statement that "in a close contest unaccountable persons pick the nominee" isn't a "vacuous" statement, for anyone that didn't catch it vacuous is a nice way of saying stupid.

What part is vacuous No One? There is a big difference between the voters having their say, having states pick who they like, or to have a close race and the outcome to be decided by mere 800 or so people deemed "super". Able to choose for everyone who comes out on top.  These super delegates each have one vote where as a single vote of a regular voter just goes to represent their states delegate choice. Its laughable to even try and portray the system in place as fair, democratic or even close to it.

hmm millions of Dems pick 3200 or so delegate votes and 800 people never elected or chosen by voters, rather just appointed, because they hold some clout in the party, each having one. To assume that is the same is in your words "No One" a "vacuous statement". lol 

Yeah that pesky Supreme Court, lol the popular vote is not what we use for good reason and if you need a lesson in history or explanation of why that a bad Idea I'd be more than happy to lecture you.

Seriously thank god the Dems are not all like you. I think there are some Good Dems out there don't get me wrong, smart ones I'm sure,  and we just disagree, but then there are guys like you that go out and copy what they hear and repeat the same garbage and misinformation over and over again. Question No One what website told you the superdelagate system is a good idea or that 800 people deciding a nomination selection for millions is the same as having a fair is just vote of the whole party? Just curious

We want to win just like you folks do~ that's what those superdelegates want, trust me.

Supreme Court=A few people unaccountable to anyone

What a vacuous statement: "It ensures that anytime there is a highly contested race like the Clinton/Obama one we have now, that the winner is picked by a few people unaccountable to anyone."

That's true of any close race. One vote is all it takes. And how can they be accountable? Pray tell? In any election?

And I'm not so sure there's a perfect system. If we went strictly by the popular vote, then Bush would not have been selected elected in 2000. Of course, he did get a little help from that damned ol' Supreme Court and its activist judges.

"am I just a crazy Republican"

Yes.

It wierd to me, too BS. Hopefully it's a lesson learned and the system will be tweaked to where Superdelegates don't matter or matter less.

spam code:areas

Then there's the popular vote. Are superdelegates ignoring that?