Buying Votes
A few people have emailed me about the article in Huffington Post which detailed efforts by a wealthy Clinton donor to try and buy the YDA's (at that time) two undeclared superdelegates.
Quite frankly, I wasn't that surprised, as the circumstances surrounding the first YDA super-delegate endorsement for Clinton was somewhat circumspect. And I actually think its a pretty good deal. One million for two votes? Sounds pretty reasonable. I just wish David Hardt had used the opportunity to try and get some big donations from the Obama donors in an effort to counteract the pressure from the Clinton financiers.
Now, some people have wondered about why a convention floor fight would be bad...and this is the reason. There are few rules or laws governing the way a delegate to the convention must cast their vote, and so you could see this sort of vote buying take place if it went all the way to the floor. Many of the "pledged" delegates are less enamored with the candidate they're pledged to support, than they are just really good at organizing people to go to a county convention and get elected as a delegate. So these pledged delegates are sometimes soft in their support, and a big check offered to them or their organization could be a hard temptation to pass up.
10 comments:
So your arguement is that the Dems cannot be trusted to be ethical enough to run a clean convention but they should be trusted to run our country? Wow that is quite an interesting viewpoint Sean.
Jim,
Actually, that was an argument against either party having a contested convention, but right now it applies to the Democratic party because we are more likely to have one.
And you wonder why people would like to see less government in their lives? You admit it all comes down to money, yet somehow cling to the belief that government programs will make things better for the disadvantaged? Do you see the disconnect in your thinking there?
And you wonder why people would like to see less government in their lives?
Actually, my problem with political conventions deciding this is that they have no real Government oversight, and are therefore susceptible to corruption.
Do you see the disconnect in your thinking there?
I see the disconnect between this topic and social welfare programs, yes.
"Actually, my problem with political conventions deciding this is that they have no real Government oversight, and are therefore susceptible to corruption."
I am confused - these are the people that will be the government if elected. What government oversight is needed? The people are susceptible to corruption only before they get elected but not after?
You are confused indeed...only about 1/5th of the delegates to the convention are elected officials.
I was referring to the candidates that cannot be expected to not try buying votes. If no one is offering to buy votes, then the delegates will not be tempted to sell them right?
But your contention is that the government needs to have oversight to prevent the future government (most of which is part of the current government) from acting corruptly.
The candidates wouldn't be doing the buying, their wealthy supporters would be the ones doing it...without direct connection to the person running.
Sean you are too funny. This person is to be president of the United States but can't keep supporters from ruining their image by buying votes? How naive are you Sean? Do you think these supporters do anything without the blessing of the candidate? Get into the real world here man!
Do you realize how many people in politics act on their own volition? Many of these wealthy donors barely know the candidate they so vociferously support, they certainly don't run every action past them. Sometimes deals are worked out at a bar late at night without any planning or preparation.
Post a Comment