This is an incorrect statement. The primaries and caucuses select delegates to the convention. Superdelegates have never mattered.
How many times have you had a say in who was the presidential candidate?
There are ways they could limit big money campaigns. Just because the parties want status quo doesn’t mean that can’t or shouldn’t.
I’m confused here - are you saying that agreeing to count all slaves in the population of a state would have been more “humanizing” ?
As far as primaries go, the Republicans actually had a good – and progressive – idea 20 years ago with their “Delaware Plan,” in which the states held their primaries ten at a time with the ten smallest states leading off (each ensuing primary would be comprised of the next ten smallest states, and so on). This would give lesser known and funded candidates time to build recognition and cash to compete in the states with bigger populations and primaries held later. The idea was nixed because GOP leadership feared the risk of using this process during a cycle when the Dems had decided to rally around a popular candidate early in the season and gotten a head start on the final campaigning.
But the system appealed to my sense of logic and still does.
In 2000? Wasn’t it pretty obvious it would be Bush vs McCain and Gore vs Bradley? While Bush and Gore were the favorites, I’d say they were less the favorites than Dole in 96 or Hillary in 2016.
It’s my understanding that it wasn’t that particular election that had them worried. It was more of a concern that they might put themselves at a disadvantage at some point in time.
I’m less concerned about personal fairness than I am about ensuring a high-quality pool of candidates, and an informed population to choose them. I’d gladly sacrifice my own “say” in order to nudge the latter in the right direction.
A gauntlet of big-state primaries right off the bat just results in campaigns having to spread resources thinly (with the exception of party favorites, and self-funded billionaires that can afford to run a national campaign right away), and as a result, voters have little else to rely on other than prior name recognition.
Rerun 2008 except with early primaries in NY and CA and Obama wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the presidency, except as a potential VP pick for Clinton.
Sure, you could fix campaign financing, and this problem goes away. How about we start there?
And, unless you overturn Buckley vs Valeo, you’ll still have the Bloomberg and Steyer billions. And, as of right now, you’d have a Newsome vs Cuomo primary with an early CA and NY. It’s easy to get over a Tom Harkin when he’s a favorite son in Iowa since there aren’t many delegates awarded anyway from IA. Even an early state CA snd NY primary could give an advantage to a Gillibrand or a Harris, and that’s a lot of delegates.
Details - for example, a bill number?
How do you possibly win the popular vote but lose under NPVIC, since it doesn’t take effect unless states with at least 270 electoral votes agree to it? And what did Tennessee’s lawyers make it do?
Er, starting in 2020, superdelegates can’t vote on the first ballot for President unless it is determined in advance that there is no chance that they change the result.
I think septimus is envisioning a scenario where Tennessee agrees to the NPVIC but then changes their mind after everyone else has already submitted their votes (and votes according to who the majority of Tennessee wants). Assuming Tennessee manages to pull this off legally, its hard for me to see how this could change the end result from a “normal” Electoral College vote. It doesn’t matter how many states sign in or subsequently back out of the NPVIC, you can’t get a scenario where a candidate somehow loses both the normal EC vote **and ** the popular vote and still wins.
Arguing that black people should have the vote would be humanizing. But again, neither the North nor the South were interested in slaves being humans — just pawns for their own political ambitions.
For starters note that almost every Blue state has voted for NPVIC, while almost every Red state has voted against it. This creates an instability: if there’s defection it will be much more likely to adversely affect the Blues, not the Reds.
Hypothetical: Tennessee joins the NPVIC, pushing it over 270; the Blues campaign heavily in California and New York rounding up huge totals in CA and NY but losing some Rust Belt states that didn’t join the NPVIC. It doesn’t matter; CNN announces that the Ds win the popular vote.
But wait! Allegations from California claim that aliens were allowed to vote. Double-voting in Chicago. The Ds running NYC threw hundreds of ballots into the East River. In a normal election it wouldn’t matter, but now every vote counts. The election is close and the government of Tennessee declares that with these corrections, the Reds win popular vote
Who’s to stop them? The sovereign state of Tennessee has control over its electoral votes, not the Feds, not the NPVIC. The sealed votes are opened together so the Blue states may not even have time to file lawsuits. Maybe Scotus will step in and prevent frauds, maybe not. Either way, the election will be settled by lawyers, not voters.
If you check out any of the existing threads that deal with NPVIC, you will see that something like this is my main problem with it as well, although I see something like this happening: a (presumably red) state’s legislature passes, and its governor signs, a law saying that, prior to January 21 following a Presidential election, the only results that can be released from that state are (a) the number of voters and (b) who got the most votes. This doesn’t affect just that state, but all states in the compact, as now nobody knows for certain who won the popular vote.
In those days, only property owners voted. Criticizing the framers of the Constitution for not arguing that slaves should be able to vote makes as much sense as faulting them for not insisting Idaho be admitted to the Union.
Counting slaves as residents would give Southern states substantially more congressional representatives, to which Northern states would never agree. Not counting slaves would entitle the South to many FEWER reps, to which THEY would never agree. Injuns were excluded by counting neither them nor their slaves. Counting slaves of free residents as fractional humans was a necessary compromise to establish the Union. Consequences remain.
Back to OP. " Lessening the inequities" is AKA “leveling the playing field” which reminds me of Ambrose Bierce’s definition: “PRESIDENCY, n. The greased pig in the field game of American politics.” Yes, politics are sweaty-filthy. Only the numb survive.
Anyway, leveling the playing field for the presidential match requires trashing the US vote-for-electors system (no “electoral college” exists). But that will not happen anytime soon unless Mr Kim fortuitously nukes DC at an appropriate moment. So we are stuck with a rigged game, further fixed if states’ rulers decide to ignore popular votes entirely. What, can they do that? Art.II Sec.1 Par.2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors… A one-party state can overrule voters. The national election day is merely a show.
My comment about other pending legislation doing “so much more” was not on point with the original post and should not have been made. It is more appropriate for a more general discussion of congressional representation.
Apologies to all.
If you are agreeing that Northerns were also racists, then you’re just restating my point in slightly different words.
Yes, a bunch of racists of varying degrees made racist compromises to establish the country. I’m explicitly rejecting the argument that the North were good guys to argue that slaves aren’t people for the direct purpose of maximizing their own political power. They advocated a racist policy to counter other racist policies to end up with a racist compromise. There was no good side in this compromise; everyone sucked there.
A lot of the defense of the EC seems to be constructed after the fact to rationalize the defenders preferred outcome and could just as easily and readily be expressed as: “My guy wu-un. Neener, neener, neener.”
Yup, if 2000 had featured a contested race in Tennessee run by Gov. Tipper Gore and went to a Supreme Court with a 5/4 liberal majority of judges appointed by Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, the rhetoric would be a lot different.
Therefore the US is illegitimate and must be disbanded, right? Because racist bargains among rich scalawags. That’s your logical conclusion. Good luck there. 
Did I ever say the North was Good Goys? Where? The Free States did end slavery without a war. The War of Southern Treason was started by Bad Boys specifically to maintain slavery, the cause proclaimed in the rebel states’ secession declarations. US Secretary of War Jefferson Davis, Lt.Col. Robert E.Lee, and their treasonous gang of oath-breaking deserters fought for slavery, like the Alamo scumbags.
Back to topic. The US electoral system skews heavily (R) which installs luzers. As a tool to ensure the consent of the governed, it’s broken. What’s your repair plan?