The Instigator
missbailey8
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Lachoneus1
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Super Delegates

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 424 times Debate No: 90595
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

missbailey8

Con

I'll be arguing against Super Delegates while my opponent has to argue for them.

Structure:
Round 1 - Opening Statements from Pro
Round 2 - Rebuttals from Con, Defense from Pro
Round 3 - Opening Statements from Con, Rebuttals from Pro
Round 4 - Defense from Con, Pro Must Waive

Rules:
1) No hate speech/ slander
2) No kritkiks
3) No plagiarism
4) No new arguments in final round
5) Please use citations
6) No forfeiture
7) No trolls

Voting Rules:
1) Vote Convincing Arguments
2) Only vote conduct if plagiarism, forfeiture, and/or slander is present
3) Only vote spelling and grammar if it's so poor it detracts from the arguments at hand

Thank you
Lachoneus1

Pro

Thank you for this chance to debate. I'm sorry that I didn't give you more, but I feel that these are the true reasons for super delegates.

A "super-delegate" is a delegate that the party decides to send to the convention. Both parties have them, but only the Democratic party delegates have any power on the first ballot. They are known as unpledged delegates. It is the existence of these unpledged delegates that I will be debating in favor of, both for the Democratic part and the Republican party.

Now, I assume that you are against the superdelegates because they are Unelected, Unaccountable, and Undemocratic. First, they are elected officials. Either directly, through people such as senators and governers, or indirectly, by being elected by these very same people. So they are both elected, either directly, or through a more delegated way, and they are accountable. If you don't like who they've nominated, go ahead and bring them down by voting for the other party. And the idea that nomination processes are democratic is wrong. It is ironic, but still true that the democratic party isn't set up as a democracy, but rather a republic.

Now as to the purpose of a party. A parties goal isn't to listen to the will of the people. The party serves to get people elected, and to get to the point where they control the government, and can advance an agenda. That is it. The party is there to get people elected. And politicians play the game and work to get people elected. The nomination process is more a poll than an election. It simply shows the politicians which candidate can inspire people, and which can win an election.

So super delegates are merely the way in which the party officials temper the views of the people, and get electable people elected.
Debate Round No. 1
missbailey8

Con

Here are my opening statements.

Superdelegate - (in the Democratic Party) an unelected delegate who is free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination at the party's national convention. [1]

In the current 2016 election, Hillary Clinton seems to be beating Bernie Sanders by quite a lot with 2,224 delegates compared to 1,451 delegates. [2] (This is information as of right now, May 7, 2016) This is including super delegates. Clinton has total of 523 superdelegates while Sanders has only 39. Simple math shows that without the superdelegates Clinton and Sanders would be at an equal playing field with 1701 and 1412 delegates respectively.

Let's look at section two of the 14th amendment.

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state." [3]

Superdelegates are unconstitutional, as they sway the vote drastically. The government plays a large part in deciding who becomes the Democratic candidate on the ballot during the election and possibly our president. This isn't how it should be. The president, by definition, popularly elected by the people. [4]

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

Citations
[1]https://www.google.com...
[2]http://www.bloomberg.com...
[3]https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[4]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Lachoneus1

Pro

In my rebuttal, I will point out that in simple math, Hillary is still winning, what simple math actually is, and reiterate how the parties are not the government.

So, first of all, if we look at the "simple math", as you put it, Hillary is still winning. By a lot. Not an insurmountable amount, but by 289. So simple math has Hillary ahead. But what do you mean by "simple math"? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that super delegates don't have a vote. They don't just disappear. Now, you may not appreciate it, but super delegates serve a role in the nomination process. They are the elected leaders of the Democratic Party, and they have an interest in getting the best person nominated and then elected.

The elected leaders are not officially beholden to the will of the voters. You may note that almost every nomination they have backed the person nominated by the party base, but the Republicans have a story to tell about this. The party base has most likely nominated Donald Trump. Now, many party officials have noted that Trump will be death in their home states. Others disagree, but we aren't here to talk about the viability of Donald Trump. Now, if Trump is on the ticket, a senator may reason that he won't win re-election.

So, according to the definition of a political party, they would be failing at their job.

Now, there is also the pull to attract new voters to the party, and keep the old voters. So, of course if the Republican Party snubbed all of those voters they would lose them. That is why the party officials normally back someone that the party elected. But they don't have to. Their main goal is to get people elected, and advance an agenda. What part of that is violated by the existence of super delegates?

Concerning your last paragraph, in what way does the government play a large part in the nomination of party officials? How is the 14th amendment relevant at all? The Democratic Party is not the government. There is no part of the constitution that regulates or prohibits the existence of super delegates in a political party. If this happened in the actually election, we would have different issues. But this isn't about an election for president. This is about nominating someone to battle for the presidency. The government has nothing to do with it.
Debate Round No. 2
missbailey8

Con

Here's my defense against my opponent's rebuttal.

In my argument using the simple math, I compared the race between Clinton and Sanders not including super delegates. I didn't say that they would simply go away, I was just pointing out how close the race is between them when super delegates aren't put in the mix. It's much tighter race when compared to the rivalry between Trump and Cruz. [1] The point is, the super delegates' votes are very influential when it comes to the elections.

"They control about 15 percent of the nominating process. The remaining 85 percent is controlled by delegates apportioned by the results of primaries and caucuses." [2]

In my opponent's argument, they say that the super delegates aren't lead by the will of the people, but they tend to back the person nominated by the party base. Can't this be seen as a bias and a crutch against the other nominees? This is true towards Bernie Sanders, as he could theoretically take a lead if it weren't for this bias, assuming Hillary Clinton is the party base.

Then, my opponent goes on to argue that they need super delegates to draw in New voters and keep the old. Apparently, this is why party officials back someone elected by the party. Voters can decide who to vote for on their own, if given accurate information about each potential candidate. We don't really need to hold voters' hands and hand pick candidates for them. There are other ways to advance an agenda rather than super delegates, like actual education regarding the conflicting views of candidates rather than the elections being a popularity contest.

Concerning my opponent's final rebuttal, the 14th amendment specifically states this.

"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state." [3]

This greatly restricts the ability to elect the president of the United States, as a president is popularly elected by the people, not by the party officials. They don't represent the views of the people and who they want to be elected.

In fact, now because of super delegates, it's mathematically impossible for Sanders to win unless he wins every single unpledged super delegate. [4] This is all because of the super delegates biased towards Clinton.

Thank you. I look forward to your opening statements.

Citations
[1]http://www.vox.com...
[2]http://theweek.com...
[3]https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[4]http://www.politico.com...

Lachoneus1

Pro

Lachoneus1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
missbailey8

Con

My argument extends.
Lachoneus1

Pro

In this final round, since in allowed no more new arguments, I will instead respond to my opponents points.

First, my point was that simple math has nothing to do with ethics. Everyone already knows that super delegates shape the nomination. That isn't up for dispute. They shape the nomination just like other delegates. The only difference is that they are elected to serve as representatives in the government and delegates in the nomination process, instead of just the latter.

On your next point, the delegates are going to be biased. They want the person who will help them get elected. If they have other biases, that's no different than elected delegates. After certain rounds, most delegates are free. What's the difference between electing a Hillary Clinton like senator and a Hillary Clinton supporting delegate? It may not be very realistic, but you still have a choice in who you support.

Now, a little side note about the bias against Bernie Sanders. I would be biased as well if he actually didn't call himself a Democrat officially until 2015.

So, one of the basic points of this debate revolves around the definition of a political party. As I've said, a political party exist to get people elected, and to stop opposing parties from getting elected. While there are other ways to do this, a system with super delegates works well to accomplish that goal. Now, as far as your comment about holding voters hands, no one is making you vote for the nominee. If you want, you can vote for whomever you want, or you can not vote at all. What the party does is its own business. If you want to be a part of it, that is your choice. The party picks the candidates that most align with their goals and gets them elected. It isn't a party based on you.

Now, why should the political party be beholden to the constitution? You never explained that. Besides, if for example, Bernie Sanders doesn't win the nomination, he could always run third party. The Democratic Party may not nominate him, but that doesn't limit anyone's right to vote.

So, in the end, you will see that I have answered the question concerning super delegates while rebutting all of my opponents points. Thank you again for the chance to debate this with you.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Lachoneus1 1 year ago
Lachoneus1
You aren't going to respond to my opening statement? I'll just respond to your defense then.
Posted by Lachoneus1 1 year ago
Lachoneus1
Weren't you supposed to rebut my points? I'm going to forfeit this round, as soon as I get your acknowledgement, then you can rebut my opening statement, and I can give a defense.
Posted by missbailey8 1 year ago
missbailey8
Those were my opening statements, so you debut then I rebut. After that, we do defense.
Posted by Lachoneus1 1 year ago
Lachoneus1
What is the new format for the debate? If that is your opening statement, do I rebut, than you rebut and I defend, then you defend and I waive my turn?
No votes have been placed for this debate.