The superdelegate system is rigged and undemocratic
Debate Rounds (3)
Superdelegates are not "democratic" at all. We need to remove the superdelegate system because it takes away the voices of the American people. Most of these superdelegates are not ordinary American citizens, they are people with millions and millions of cash in their bank accounts. Why should they have a larger say in politics than we do? America was built as a democracy where people could vote for whomever they choose. Whoever wins the popular vote, would get the nomination. Now, that system has been ruined. First of all, independents are not allowed to vote in most primaries, and they take up about 42% of registered voters in America, so that's another disadvantage. Second of all, no citizen, regardless of income or reputation, should have more power over a democratic election than another. Why should millionaires have a vote that's worth more than thousands of people combined? Many of these rich superdelegates are not using their money to help the American people, while ordinary American citizens are struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table for their family of four. Why should we listen to them over people with real struggles? It's not fair that 714 people have more of a say in the election than most of the American population, which is about 330,000,000. 28% of Americans are registered as Democrats, which is about 92,400,000 people. One democratic superdelegate vote accounts for 129,411 average American votes. How in the world is this a democracy when the election system is rigged against the people?
this gets to one of your other points about how independents cant vote in democratic primaries, this is because its the process that the democratic party has laid out to choose a nominee. now when the actual election day gets here then we may exercise our voting rights on that day. these primaries are contests set up by the respective parties thus they can have their super delegates to ensure that they pick the 'best looking' democratic candidate that best represents the parties agenda as well as the party primary voters choice.
While they do have the right to pick and choose whatever rule or procedure they want to get the nominee, this is a democracy. The first words of the foundation of our government, The Constitution, are "We The People". A country is not a democracy unless every single person's vote is equal and no one's is any more or less important. I don't think that they are abiding to the ideals that our country was built upon. Everyone can have a say in who we want to lead our country. According to Merriam Webster, there are three definitions to the word democracy:
"A form of government in which people choose leaders by voting."
"A country ruled by democracy."
"An organization in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights."
We may be promised a general election, but why should there be rules where SOME people can vote in primaries, not all of them? That's not fair. The only states that allow independents to vote in the primaries are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachussetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin. That is 19 out of 50 states. Only 38% of states allow independents to vote in the primary! That's not a democracy. That is not equal rights, for sure.
A democracy would be where everyone has an equal say in what they want for their government.
now, the constitution IS being upheld we're not losing out, our voices will be heard on the day that we have the right to be heard. this means that independents will be able to exercise their right to vote and can, if they held their own primaries, exclude or include whoever they want in their nomination process. then in November just like the constitution says we will all have the right to vote for whoever we want. The constitution also protects our right to free association and courts have upheld this right. "On October 1, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the Virginia mandatory open primary statute was unconstitutional as applied to the Republicans because it imposed a burden on their freedom to associate under the First Amendment"
the thing here is that the parties have a right to freely associate if they want meaning no outsiders if they say so but if the state party officials choose so then in those states they do and many times states try to impose unconstitutional laws on the parties trying to dictate how the parties choose their nominees but the fact remains that each party has the right to choose whatever rule they want in their nomination process including super delegates and closed primaries and then we get to exercise our right to vote later down the line in November.
leftwingandproud forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 4 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro correctly points out that a single super delagate vote is worth over 100,000 votes from ordinary citizens and points out that independentsbare excluded from the voting process. Con was actually arguing a bit off topic so he never actually counters that these things are democratic. Pro successfully defends the first part of the resolution. Good job pro, now for the 2nd part. The system is definedbas rigged, which I interpret to mean unfair. Pro I think expects people to just assume undenocratic is unfair but never displays that it is, while Con points out that the party is doing these things to insure they run the best candidate, and that they also have avlegal right. This is close to making an argument about unfairness (rigged) but not quite there, but unfortunately pro has the burden of proof in my opinion and never makes an argument that the system is rigged, merely that it is undemocratic. Clear win for con and condict points for forfeit as well
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.