Superdelegates

[Jolly_Penguin]

Compromise is essential to democracy. Party establishments exist to enforce the agreed upon platform. If you don't like your party's platform, you can leave the party. It is harmful to the party to have people remain inside the party, but work to undermine it. Parties break down when large numbers of members start defying the platform. It is natural and even desirable for this to happen occasionally. However, it is also natural for parties to resist this from happening. If a party breaks apart, it is because the coalition of voters that sustained it could no longer agree on a platform. If a party puts down an insurrection, it is because the voters decide that the benefits of the party platform compromise is greater than the disadvanteges. In our present situation, we have the republican coalition breaking down, and the platform being rewritten before our eyes. The democratic party is also being challenged, but shows no sign of breaking down. Polls indicate that the majority of Sanders supporters, like myself, will accept and support Clinton if she wins. In the republican party, however, large numbers of people say they would support Trump if he ran as a 3rd party candidate, and other large numbers say they wouldn't vote for him, even if he is the nominee.

I used to think that the US's two party system was a bad one, but then I started following Israel's multi-party system, and found much to recommend ours. Both systems, and other systems of course, have their own advantages and disadvantages. You must choose which advantages and disadvantages you prefer.

You don't think that Bernie's supporters would follow him out of the Democratic Party were he to run third party?

 

[Sarpedon]

The polls say the majority wouldn't. I wouldn't. Doubtless some would.

Furthermore, Sanders himself would probably see that would only lead to President Trump, and wouldn't do it either. Again, the individual deciding that the compromise party platform is advantageous.

Whereas on the Republican side, there seems to be less colleagiality amongst the candidates, and the voters. It helps that the Democratic party has always emphasized compromise and inclusiveness, while the republicans are eating the bitter fruit of their divisiveness and wedge strategies.

 

[PyramidHead]

Some food for thought: Bernie as a third-party candidate would split the Dem vote, but that would only be a problem if the Republican vote wasn't also split. If Trump doesn't get nominated and runs as an independent, would it then be less risky for Bernie to also run as an independent? We haven't had a major 4-person presidential contest in the general for... have we ever?

 

[Sarpedon]

Not since the Civil War.

Lincoln, Douglas, Bell, and Breckinridge. 1860.

I think that fact alone would give a hint to how 'risky' it is.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Some food for thought: Bernie as a third-party candidate would split the Dem vote, but that would only be a problem if the Republican vote wasn't also split. If Trump doesn't get nominated and runs as an independent, would it then be less risky for Bernie to also run as an independent? We haven't had a 4-person presidential contest in the general for... have we ever?

Yes.

 United States presidential election, 1912

 

[Sarpedon]

Sorry, I overlooked that one. Definitely not as apocalyptic. Though one might question if Debs would count more than say, Ralph Nader. In 1860, the smallest candidate, Bell, got 12% of the vote and carried three states.

There are always a variety of minor parties running. Is 6% enough to be more than a minor party?

 

[PyramidHead]

Yeah, that's why I edited it to "major" 4-candidate race. There are usually Green, Libertarian, and other parties in the mix, but they don't make it to the televised debates. Clinton, Trump, Sanders, and Rubio duking it out on CNN would be one helluva show.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sorry, I overlooked that one. Definitely not as apocalyptic. Though one might question if Debs would count more than say, Ralph Nader. In 1860, the smallest candidate, Bell, got 12% of the vote and carried three states.

There are always a variety of minor parties running. Is 6% enough to be more than a minor party?

I'd say he did.

No one is in the Presidential race to take Sander's platform. 1912 was a very strong three-candidate race and it would end up being the best the Socialist parties would ever do in a Presidential race. While Debs didn't steal any votes, it could be argued Roosevelt pilfered from him, he did represent a unique platform of which did gain some notable attention.