Obama wins popular vote, has the most delegates 49%, Hillary wins the nomination
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
February 12, 2008 2:10pm CST
People will not believe this but close to 40% of the delegates to the national convention are called Super Delegates. These are the elected officals, Party leaders and former presidents that are not bound by the popular vote. It is possible for a candidate to win the election with 11% of the delegates up for election and lose the popular vote big time and still get the nomination. With the democratic race being very close the Super Delegates become all important. Early on the the primary process it was thought that most of the super delegates favored Hillary. Now most of them are being very quiet about their support and they may be hoping for a political position with the candidate.
It would be interesting after the 2000 election when Al Gore and the democratics felt the popular vote should be more important than the Electorial College. Will they follow the will of the people or will they let the party procedures and rules nominate the candidate?
2 people like this
4 responses
@lightningMD (5931)
• United States
12 Feb 08
I myself being neither a republican nor a democrat believe that the popular vote is what should count. I think that the delegate votes should be banished. We the peoples votes should count for who is going to be running our country. Not another politician with an ajendas vote.
@dlkuku (1935)
• United States
13 Feb 08
I watched an interview of a young college aged, Super delegate, who lunches with Chelsea, sorry can't remember his name.
Now gee, wonder who he will vote for?
I think this whole thing is unfair and unbalanced, the government according to the Constitution is supposed to be 'by the people, for the people' yet a few get to choose who are next President will be?
I for one want my vote to count, it's bad enough NC voters have to wait till May to vote when choices are limited due to drop outs, but to have our votes not really mean anything in the end really sticks in my craw.
I think this whole process is terrible, unorganized, unethical in some areas, unfair to voters, and needs a complete overhawling.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
13 Feb 08
Some people have suggest that we have a national primary day and set it closer to the convention. Rush Limbaugh suggested that we hold elections without any polls being taken. Wouldn't it be nice to vote for someone and not know what the rest of the country is thinking.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
13 Feb 08
I saw what was probably the same interview but he didn't say he "lunches" with Chelsea he said he had one breakfast meeting with her. He's also met with other people from both campaigns. He wouldn't say who he intends to vote for, in fact he says he's not yet decided. I still have problems with this system but I don't really think the problem lies with Super Delegates like this young guy but rather with the politicians in high positions who are Super Delegates.
Annie
@dlkuku (1935)
• United States
13 Feb 08
If they just did one primary and let us all vote at the same time, especially without all the hype from the media, especially news stations who are really bent to one or another candidate, I think we would have better results.
My husband thinks we should just all vote in November one time for whoever is running and let that be that, none of this nominating who is actually going to run. I don't know if it's a good idea or not, maybe in some ways.
1 person likes this

@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Feb 08
I, for one, certainly hope it doesn't come down to the "Super Delegates" deciding the nomination and at this point I still have hope that it won't. As I write this it's being discussed on MSNBC. I'm hoping these delegates - or at least enough of them - do the right thing and vote according to the popular vote and I'm also hoping some changes are made to this process before the next election comes along. One thing I feel fairly confident they won't do, and that's just sweep it under the rug and pretend there are no problems with the process. To say they may be hoping for a position with the candidate is a bit of an exaggeration because while this certainly could be the case with some of them it isn't with most, as many of them are just party activists in their own state or district. I'm seriously hoping there will be more people in high positions within the Democratic party who feel it's more important to follow the will of the people than there were in the Republican party in 2000. That isn't setting the bar too high, I'm afraid.
Annie
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
13 Feb 08
It is the super delegates who will be dealing for a position in the new administration. Look at the number of former congressmen who are now ambassadors or heads of departments within the government. Most of the delegates are hard working people who work for a pay check. The Super Delegates are the politicians and most politicians are professional politicians. By that I mean that they have always been a politician and have little or no experience in the private sector. I have known several young college students who were interested in politics and after college have been working for political groups or politicians. When you look at the background of many of the elected officials you see a record of political appointed or elected offices. It was in teh news that a former congressman was appointed ambassador to a small African Country and will be looking for a job after thenext election. It is not a democratic thing both parties do it and it is considered the way of life.
1 person likes this
@lightningd (1039)
• United States
12 Feb 08
The time has come for the country to do away with the whole electoral college. It was fine back when the country was new, and it was impossible to count all of the votes from every state in a timely manner.
Today's technology has made it a feasable way to do the election. Put it to a vote of the people. The electoral college has no place in today's technological world. We could easily count every vote now and make the votes count.
I don't know why nobody has attempted to change it yet. It's been outdated forever. So many people don't realize that their vote really doesn't count in the big picture. I mean think about it. When the real election to pick a president is held this November, the way the electoral votes are determined are they look at who won each state, then each state's electoral votes go to one candidate or the other. For example, If 51% of Kansas voters voted democrat, and 45 percent voted republican, and the other 4% voted independent, or not at all, then, the democrat running for president would win the Kansas electoral votes. These electoral votes are determined by population. It's really wrong. Our votes don't really count.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
13 Feb 08
The first thing you need to understand is that the founding fathers were concerned that we not have a Federal Government that more powerful than the states. They set up two legislative branches. One, the House of Representatives to protect the interest of the people, and the Senate to protest the interest of the states. The Executive Branch was to carry out the wishes of the people and the states. A system was devised that would allow the people to have a say in who was the President but with protection to prevent the big states from dominating the smaller states. That protection was the Electoral College. States have the choice to have a winner-takes-all rule and proportional rule. Two states Maine and Nebraska have the proportional rule and it is possible for the electoral votes to be divided between the candidates. If you depend on the popular vote then the candidates only have to campaing in the Boston to Washington DC area and San Deigo to San Francisgo and a few other large cities. The rural areas and low population states would be ignored and would have no say in the election.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
13 Feb 08
It is the fact that the politicians don't have to answer to the people out side of the big urban areas. Look at any large city and you see that they have mass transit and it is paid for by the gas tax which is paid for by the rural areas. If you look at the 2004 election map as reported by county you will see that in states like New York, California, IL, Mass, and you will see that how the large city voted is the way the states electoral votes went. The rest of the state voted the other way and no electoral votes. For example, when the Chicago public schools have a problem they go to the state and ask for more money. The down state people are upset but the City of Chicago always wins out and gets the money. The same thing happens in New York City. Without the Electoral College the east coast and west coast will control the country.
1 person likes this
@lightningd (1039)
• United States
13 Feb 08
But with today's technology, the campaigning isn't so much of an issue. Seriously, do you really think that people in some itty bitty town in Wyoming aren't educated enough to choose a candidate. There is the internet, news, and plenty of media for people to choose their candidate by making informed decisions. Back when they electoral college was created, there wasn't a way for people in little towns and rural areas to get to know the candidates. Now there is, and the electoral college is therefore outdated. It doesn't matter what state has how many people. It should matter that the majority of the people across the nation vote for one or the other. It's not fair that in the last election, I voted for the democrat, and so did about 48% percent of the state, but yet, the republican got elected because of the electoral botes going to him because he had 52%. So split the electorals accordingly. Make it actually fair.
1 person likes this






