Personal tools

Argument: Superdelegates are ideal primary election tie-breakers

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 15:05, 7 June 2010; Renergy (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

  • "SUPERDELEGATES!....Ezra Klein comments". Washington Quarterly. February 6, 2008 - "Maybe I'm just being contrarian here, but why would this be so bad? After all, the only way it could happen is if the voters themselves split nearly 50-50. And in that case, the nomination would end up being decided by a massive effort to sway uncommitted delegates anyway. So who cares if that massive effort is directed at superdelegates (senators, governors, etc.) or the more plebeian regular delegates (typically county chairs, local activists, etc.). And in any case, why shouldn't the party elders, many of whom have to run on the same ticket as the presidential nominee, get a little extra say in the process?
If, say, Obama wins 1,800 delegates to Clinton's 1,400, and superdelegates end up reversing a convincing Obama win, that would be a problem. That's pretty unlikely, though. On the other hand, if primary season ends up basically tied at 1,600 apiece, I don't see why superdelegates aren't as good a way as any to break the deadlock."
But there is a catch. While delegates chosen in a primary or caucus are technically committed to a candidate, superdelegates can change their allegiance at any time. The threat of a wholesale shift hangs over both candidates."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits