The last time I checked, the notion of democracy included the idea that one person is one vote, rather than these special people I appointed are worth 10,000 votes each. It's not even a three fifths compromise, it's a 10000:1 between your (and I will continue to call them this because it is what they are) political aristocracy and everybody else.faul wrote: Now you're getting it. firetrucking finally. Of course, minus the part that you don't recognize any democratic process as democratic unless it's exactly the democratic process you're thinking of, but incremental progress is still progress, good job.
You claim that I don't know how your aristocrats are selected, again you continue to presume my argument and my stance for me. The three categories are elected officials, delegates for life by being ex-President or Vice President, or simply be a member of the DNC as a powerbroker or activist. Of the 719 superdelegates 438 fall into this third category, they need not ever have been elected by the public or served a term in office. All they need is the ability to draw funds to the party.
Unelected, check. Wield power beyond the ken of normal men, check. Control the majority of the votes in the DNC, check. There's your political aristocracy. And there's your corporate and financial interests directly controlling your candidates, commerce and growth ahead of human interests.
But to summarise and conclude.
Fundamentally you're claiming that the ends justify the means, which given the very premise of a democracy is a mechanism or the means by which to elect a leader, shows that you, like the party mechanism you are defending do not give a damn about it. It's the same argument with the party charter, that's supposed to be a document that dictates what actions are and are not allowed by the party and its members, what constitute acceptable means. It's the geneva convention of the democrat party. And once again you would throw it aside to achieve whatever your ends are.
So I have to ask why, what is so important that your side win at any cost, that the *right* person be nominated despite the wishes of the electorate, that candidates who are not the *right* candidate be given short shift and shafted, again with little to no regard for the wishes of the electorate. Or in short, why you are so eager to implement an out and out near dictatorial mandate for the nomination of democratic party presidential candidates.
What is so inherently wrong with, for example a person winning who you disagree with if the majority of people consider them to the the least worst option.