Should the superdelegates be suspended to avoid corruption?

[barack the house]

Poll question: Should the superdelegates be suspended to avoid corruption?

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Absolutely. There's nothing that better demonstrates our committment to honest elections...

like changing the rules mid-election.

:spank:

[barack the house]

2. It's one rule open to bribes and that is hugely unethical.

[MNDemNY]

4. So ,Obama has the edge on that.

[MNDemNY]

3. You mean change the rules in the middle of the game?

[krawhitham]

11. exactly, you can do away with them for 2012 but not this year

[frazzled]

5. Absolutely not--but I don't accept your poll's two answers

First, there is no evidence of corruption amongst the superdelegates.
Second, they are part of the existing rules. We therefore must accept their judgment.
Last, I trust they will go with the will of the people--whatever that may be.

Stop being paranoid. I say this as an Obama supporter.

[pampango]

13. Agreed, on all counts. n/t

[maddiejoan]

6. How about this?

Hillary and Obama face off in a one on one basketball game?

If you're going to change the rules --at least make them funny to watch as well.

[Hawkeye-X]

8. I'll take your bet..

One of Obama's favorite hobbies is basketball. He'll beat HRC hands down, with one hand tied behind his back.

[maddiejoan]

9. Uhm

Duh.

Way to miss the point.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. please don't feed the cicadas

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Nope. They Exist For A Reason. In Fact, This Poll Is Quite Silly.

It won't come down to it, but for all we know this whole 'Wright' incident could've had the potential to totally wound Obama to the point where he'd be a huge liability in the GE. That doesn't appear like it will end up being the case, but if things would've aligned differently it well might've been. And in a situation like that, it would've been VITAL to our party and our GE chances to have the SD's in place to be able to make things right and send the stronger candidate to the GE. I think it showed EXACTLY why they are necessary and why they have a role to play in our nomination process.

And though some undoubtedly have their alliances, over all the SD's will group together to give the nom to the one who makes the most sense, and there's no reason at this point to believe that it wouldn't be Obama. But there's no way enough of them would lean to Hillary based on corruption. That theory is quite silly. Instead, if they ended up going to Hillary in enough numbers to give her the nom (highly unlikely), then it would be due to careful consideration and recognition that it was the best thing for us going into November. But to suspend them, take away their voice, and render them moot? No way. They exist for a reason.

[LWolf]

12. You want to avoid corruption?

You need to scrap the whole primary season. Pick a day, in June, for a national primary. Put all 8 names on every ballot. Including Florida and Michigan. Including caucus states. Use IRV. Get rid of all the corporate, PAC, and special interest campaign funds, funnel campaign funds through a campaign committee that disperses equal funding for all, and set up a few real debates, allowing all candidates to answer all questions, and equal talk time to all candidates.

Count all the ballots, with an IRV system in place, on the same day. Release results. You have a presumptive nominee that is actually chosen by everyone in the party in a non-corrupt, democratic fashion, giving every candidate and every voter an equal voice.

[emilyg]

14. Stupid poll.