Quote:
Originally Posted by meiguoren  You must realize that this is the first election in a LOOOONG time where only senators are the main candidates? Clinton was a Governor, Bush I was a Governor, Bush II was a Governor...etc etc and their policy was not really formed or dictated by any senators or the senate itself
Also this idea that political parties have an obligation to follow the will of the people is really against American values. Parties are private organizations and should not be expected to eliminate superdelegates especially considering the open nature of some of the primaries (where non-party members are allowed to vote). Now the electoral college is however a relic of an era where the literacy rate was piss poor but the beauty of the system is not that it is perfect but that the people can change it at will without having to start a war. Eventually they will but right now no one seems to care much. |
As a matter of fact, nominating a Sentaor is usually a terrible idea. They almost always lose because they end up defending years of public votes and Senatorial politics is a mess. (Just because I vote in favor of a bill, doesn't mean that I support the bill. It might be the best compromise, it might have a certain section that I think I have to have, it might be a political trade-off,etc....)
And you make a valid point about the parties. The parties exist to elect candidates, not to respond to the will of the people. Just like the parties do not exist to promote liberalism nor conservatisim. Those are movements, not parties. For most of US history, nominees came out of the proverbial "smoke-filled back room". Nothing to do with the will of the people. But, of course, a party would have a rather hard time electing a candidate if it ignored the will of its most likely voters.
