c80afffe4be97f32762d…

what no one else will — the Establishment is smarter than the electorate:

Well, with Democrats as the exclusive study sample here, he’s certainly right. In fact, the entire premise of Democrat Party politics is that the politicians are much smarter and, I might add, better looking than the unwashed Democrat ‘tards who vote for them. In fact, that’s precisely why Democrat voters vote for them. I think we all know that.

Although some complain about the winner-take-all states on the Republican side, the overall result reflects the popular vote — which the Democratic superdelegates can reject at whim, and Hunt argues that they should have that leeway.

The question of winner-take-all delegations has been addressed in connection with the Electoral College, with respect to which most of the States do have a winner-take-all arrangement. It’s said that proportional division of convention delegates or Electors would indirectly encourage candidates to focus their campaigns, even more than they already do, on a small number of highly populated areas. Winner-take-all delegations seem to require candidates to campaign broadly across the country. Letting a simple majority have their way is not the only issue in an election. Elected officials must govern an entire country and all its people, no matter where their supporters lived when they cast their votes. Thus, it seems best for officials to tend toward a broad acquaintance with all of the country’s regions and their affairs. Winner-take-all delegations seem to encourage such broad-mindedness.

That’s beside the point. If you are going to have a primary system in your party; rigging it to some peoeple have more say than others is dishonest, dont you agree?

lorien1973 on February 27, 2008 at 3:45 PM

No, I don’t agree. Think of it as a soft drink company asking its customers for input on a new drink: they’ll certainly take their opinion into consideration but ultimately they can make whatever they want, and that’s the way it should be.

And how did the college become established in the first place? Was it not voted upon democratically? Can free people not vote to become less free?

Here’s a small thought exercise (comparable to taking a census of the direction of the rafts in the Cuban waters).

Divide the nation into purely blue, and purely red states. What would the flow be across that boundary? Symmetric? or Asymmetric?

I suspect the blue states would not require a virtual fence, or if they did, it would be oriented in a surprising, Berlin-like way.

But you have to give those elites their due… if the party can truncate democracy internally, just imagine what it can do for the whole nation.

Women don’t lie about sexual assault, except for when they lie about Bill Clinton.

Voters counts, unless we don’t like who they pick.

We love the gays, so just ignore the ENDA and DOMA stuff.

We love the black guys too… as long as they limit their wins to places like South Carolina.

We love the Jews, but Hamas and Arafat are cooler!

We’re not racist, so ignore that Byrd guy… he’s changed.

We’re against the death penalty unless you’re a knocked-up secretary who’s partial to late night car rides with drunken Senators.

We believe in nation-building, unless the builder is a Republican.

Private jets cause global warming… so only those who believe in global warming are allowed to fly in private jets.

We want to help the working class, but WalMart is evil and MUST be destroyed.

Gartrip on February 27, 2008 at 4:19 PM

Gartrip, that was Excellent! You’ve summed up the Democrat Party perfectly!

I see t-shirts by the boxful out of each one of those…with maybe “DNC” in big, bold RED letters or a RED Donkey with a Communist sickle on it’s derriere…yeah, that’s the ticket! And in case you wre wondering, “Why RED?”, red is the colour of all good communists.

Once upon a time…

Apparently Washington citizens don’t care about their sovereignty as a state…..

I’m starting to see a pattern in dems logic, pure stupidity and lacking in seeing bigger pictures or seeing how a decision may bring upon consequences.

Now one the architects of the Democratic delegate structure defends the concept in today’s Washington Post by saying what no one else will — the Establishment is smarter than the electorate.

That assumption is almost certainly correct, and it isn’t a new one, either.

Two words: Electoral College.

Valiant on February 27, 2008 at 5:08 PM

I crossed over, but the other direction. (I will never be able to get clean enough again)

Why Superdelegates Royalists are smarter than Democratic voters

The Democratic voters can eat cake.

Hey! I didn’t break anything this time!

Ed Morrissey on February 27, 2008 at 3:18 PM

CONGRATS!!!

Getting better at this whole blogging thing I see ;)

/humor

It’s ironic that the Democratic Party seems to have the bigger problem with democratic results.

It would be if it actually was the Democratic Party. But it is not, they are the DEMOCRAT Party.

Of course they like to have their name said incorrectly to help brainwash their voters…

Off topic a bit but..who is that in the picture? It looks like John Hurt the British actor.

MechEng5by5 on February 27, 2008 at 4:10 PM

It is; that’s a still from “1984″.

Voters counts, unless we don’t like who they pick.

We love the gays, so just ignore the ENDA and DOMA stuff.

We love the black guys too… as long as they limit their wins to places like South Carolina.

We love the Jews, but Hamas and Arafat are cooler!

We’re not racist, so ignore that Byrd guy… he’s changed.

We’re against the death penalty unless you’re a knocked-up secretary who’s partial to late night car rides with drunken Senators.

We believe in nation-building, unless the builder is a Republican.

Private jets cause global warming… so only those who believe in global warming are allowed to fly in private jets.

We want to help the working class, but WalMart is evil and MUST be destroyed.