The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

The superdelegate system is rigged and undemocratic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 634 times Debate No: 92161
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




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?


I disagree and here's why, the democratic party has the right to pick and choose whatever rule or procedure they want to ultimately get to a nominee, and that's the key word there 'nominee'. the parties have their rules in place for a reason, so that they can get to the 'best looking' democratic, republican.... whig? candidate to represent their respective parties.
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.
Debate Round No. 1


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.


okay so at least we're getting somewhere, we both agree that the parties have the legal right to include 'super delegates' in their nominating process.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


leftwingandproud forfeited this round.


So i guess that sums it up for now.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: harrytruman// Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: forfeiture

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is allowed to award conduct only votes solely in instances where one of the debaters forfeits half or more than half of their rounds. In this case, the debater in question only forfeited a single round. If the voter wishes to award conduct to Con, the voter must also assess arguments made on this debate, even if they choose not to award points.
Posted by theobjectiveobjective 2 years ago
Also disagree. There are different forms of democracy and different levels of participation. What the anti-superdelegate voice is arguing for appears to be DIRECT democracy. Think of our legislative branch, they vote on the laws, not us. We vote for or against the representatives. The primaries/caucuses have some similarities to that. California has a lot of direct democracy as the have so many propositions that go on the ballot. We can look at that dynamic to analyze direct democracy. Look at what happened to their school system. The point that I eventually get to is that too much democracy can be bad and lead to mob rule. It has been argued that the parties have less power than they used to due to the effect of money and brand on campaigns. This is part of the reason for Trump's success. I would like my party to have the ability to moderate these phenomena.

The point is direct democracy vs. indirect democracy, which do you prefer?

I also agree with the argument that the parties have the right to set their own procedures. You can make your voice heard to your party regarding the rules and push for them to be changed.

Finally, I ultimately agree with your frustration and the point that these rules interfere with direct democracy. I just prefer less direct democracy.
Posted by David_Debates 2 years ago
America isn't a democracy (ruled by the people). It's a republic (ruled by elected officials). You need to define your terms before going on a rant about the electoral college. Also, statistics without sources are the bane of debates, make sure you link those.
Posted by Vict0rian 2 years ago
I don't think you're gonna find anyone that disagrees with you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
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