One could successfully argue that this system has, for the most part, served America quit well. We have elected a number of very admirable representatives while giving support to just a handful of incompetents and scoundrels. But the real question is; could we have done better and are we capable of doing better? Rubber stamping elections defeats the true intent of democracy, as the threat always looms large for disaster in such a process. It is even more crucial we avoid it in our republic. Let’s consider the following.
The national conventions held every four years by the two major political parties no longer select their presidential nominees. They have become rubber stamps for what has transpired months, or in some cases, years before the opening gavels are sounded.
Previously candidates would arrive at the conventions with a certain number of delegates won in caucuses, primary elections and those who had been successfully influenced in some political manner to provide support. On Occasion, the number they gathered would fall short of what was required to win the party nomination. So, they would slug it out at the convention, working to change or gain greater support from party powerbrokers and loyalists.
After Robert Kennedy won the California primary in June of 1968 the delegates count stood at; Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey 561 (all Lyndon Johnson Supporters – Humphrey did not campaign in the primaries), Kennedy 393, and Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy 258. None of the candidates had enough delegates to win the nomination which is why the last public words spoken by Kennedy were; “Now it’s on to Chicago and let’s win there.”
Pew Research Center studies show that multiple ballot candidates seldom win the presidency. It took Adlai Stevenson II three ballots to secure the necessary delegates to win the Democratic Party nomination in 1952. He lost the election to Dwight D, Eisenhower (no one could have beaten a war hero of Ike’s stature in ’52 or ’56). Nevertheless, political parties are committed to developing frontrunners through political maneuvering to secure the necessary delegates to win. These frontrunners are then enthusiastically embraced at the convention and always nominated on the first ballot. This manipulation short-circuits any competition or public debate over issues or the focus and direction for our country. The voice of the people is effectively silenced. This demonstrates strong unity so the candidate can be rubber stamped.
To further assure the appearance of unity and uncontested conventions, different processes have been implanted. One such nasty process is that of “superdelegates.” “Superdelegates” are composed of party leaders and elected officials (PLEO). These delegates are considered unpledged until they voice support at the convention. Party officials can and often do instruct these delegates in exactly who they must support. Pledged delates are those secured in state caucuses and primary elections.
Both parties have adopted this system. The Democrats, however, have refined it into an art form in limiting the voice of their party members to influence the outcome.
The Democratic party has 713 “Superdelegates.” We have been led to believe that Superdelegate support will be withheld until they are called upon to cast their vote at the conventions. Yet, superdelegates have announced early support for Hillary Clinton well in advance of the convention.
Even though Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary by a 60% to 38% margin, Hillary Clinton left the state with an equal number of delegates even though she lost in a landslide. This was due to “Superdelegates” support being announced for her. All through this election cycle, “Superdelegates” have been included in total delegates won in a state. This has disadvantaged Saunders because it diminishes an accurate accounting and perception of his success in challenging Hillary Clinton.
Tapper; “What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?”
Wasserman Schultz; “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.”
Translated that means “Superdelegates” exist to limit opposition to those who would challenge the Democratic power structure. Wasserman Schultz is making it clear that the existing power structure will determine the nominee and no one else. They are assuring they can suppress any challenge or opposition to their will and any threat to their power and dominance. Thus, peace and unity appear present at the convention.
While her response was shockingly blunt and honest, Tapper chose not to press her on it. Tapper said; “I’m not sure that that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let’s move on.”
This is most disturbing when viewed from the perspective that there are currently clear differences on the issues between those running for the Democratic Party nomination. Allowing their members to choose the candidate would also be risky in that that candidate may NOT represent party strategists believe is necessary to win. Naturally, anything that could jeopardize winning must be eliminated from the equation. Once again for continuity and the best chance of winning the party must maintain total control.
What now follows this chicanery is the general election. Because the vast majority of American believe that there are only two candidates to support, they will in turn rubber stamp these rubber-stamped nominees to serve as president.
##############################################
Democrats had a choice that was stolen from them
Wealth Used As Political Influence
Hillary Clinton: Has a personal net wealth of over $45 million. That’s over 50 times as much as Bernie Sanders. She amassed that kind of wealth through a career spent almost solely in public service. Over 80% of Clinton’s campaign contributions are coming from rich powerful donors such as Wall Street. Super Pacs have been created in support of her
Bernie Sanders: “…let's not be naive about it.”
“I have never heard a candidate—never—who's received huge amounts of money… who doesn't say, 'Oh, these contributions will not influence me,… ' But why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something.” “I don’t represent large corporations and I don’t want their money.” “We are relying on small campaign donors, 750,000 of them, thirty bucks apiece. That's who am I indebted to.”
Health Care
Hilary Clinton: Believes our health care system should remain under the control of the private sector (insurance companies).
Bernie Sanders: Believes we should institute a single payer universal health care system similar to those employed by every other industrialized nation in the world.
Minimum Wage
Poverty Level established by Federal Gov. - $24,250.00 Yearly
Hillary Clinton: Proposed $12.00 an hour - $24,960.00 Yearly
Bernie Sanders: Favors
$15.00 an hour - $31,200.00 Yearly
College Education Costs
Hillary Clinton: Wants to tinker with interest rates and
payment schedules.
Bernie Sanders: “Higher education must be a right for all – Not just wealthy families.” And; “If Germany, Denmark, Sweden and many more provide tuition- free college…We should do the same thing.”
Social Security and Medicare
Hillary Clinton: Does NOT want it repealed. She is silent on any methods for increasing or improving the system.
Bernie Sanders: “Our job is to expand the life of Social Security by decades by scrapping the cap on taxable income…” “We should be talking about expanding the benefits to make sure that every American can retire with dignity.”
