Superdelegates - Tom Daschle

[GroG]

I just watched the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, where he was interviewing Tom Daschle about being a super delegate. Now here's what I don't understand - The super delegates are allowed to vote for whoever they wish. They can also change their vote at any time. Finally, they are appointed by the democrats (they receive a letter from "Mr. Chairman" Howard Dean - if he actually appoints them I don't know).

So, Tom Daschle supports Barrack Obama. His state, South Dakota, hasn't had their primary yet. Finally, Barrack Obama claims to have the votes of "the majority of super delegates". Also, Tom Daschle talked about how the super delegates have met together and talked about who they support.

Finally, my last comment is that when all the primaries/caucuses are done, they will all go with the majority delegate holder because "that's what you should do", which if Hillary got the majority he would change his vote.

So, does this process seem "democratic" to you? To me, this seems like a ploy for our government to change the morale of the voters, thinking they are being supported by our government officials, who will inevitably get to decide who is the democratic candidate anyways.

I dunno, this just seems wrong to me. What's your opinion?

[Oblongato]

The democratic aspect of the U.S. government is not in many cases direct. It is assumed that some decisions must be made by experts; in these cases the people do not vote directly, but instead for the "experts" who are to make the decision as our representatives. All of the so-called superdelegates were at least indirectly chosen by voters.

The advantages of this more indirect form of democracy are obvious; it should prevent decisions from being made that are as stupid as the ones we would make if we were allowed to decide directly, in a referendum, for example.

What would happen if there were a referendum on whether income taxes should be cut by half? I suspect such a referendum could succeed, which would immediately bring ruin on the government and the country.

It is an obvious fact (to me at least ;) ) that not all citizens in a democracy are qualified to make all of the decisions that must be made by the government. Why, then, should they be given that power? The current U.S. system reserves a strong role for the citizenry, but has checks and balances in place to prevent the populace from wreaking total destruction on the government. Sometimes this may seem frustrating, for example when it hurts our favored candidate, but it also protects us from the whims of the uninformed.

[GroG]

Representation is indeed indirect form of control, since we elect people who then decide what gets put into legislature. The problem is, in this scenario there might be someone elected, not by the voters but by the indirect form of control. That's huge - and it shouldn't be happening.

Finally, my other point is that while the superdelegates have official "stances" on who they support, this changes with the wind. So while candidates can claim they have the support of all these delegates, which may or may not influence voters, they really don't.

Smoke and mirrors, my friend. Smoke and mirrors..

[Oblongato]

It seems from your comments that you would favor direct election of the president. Whether indirect selection should or shouldn't be happening is debatable. Personally, I favor the indirect version of democracy - there should be a buffer between the (relatively uninformed) will of the people and the decisions made on their behalf. In our system, the only authority really granted to the voters on the national level is to select the people they trust to make their decisions for them. The people themselves are poorly qualified; lack the education, background and in many cases simple intelligence to make the decisions that must be made by government.

This is not to say that the decision makers need not answer to the people. The people should demand accountability, but should also recognize that it is their role to judge ability and character, not the issues themselves. In this sense, our system has been perverted by more and more direct influence of voters in matters of government that most voters do not even understand. Why, otherwise, would a person of obviously average intelligence such as George Bush be made the so-called leader of the free world? Why on earth would people vote for someone like themselves in ability and not someone who towers above them? We should not be choosing our most average to lead us; we should be choosing those who can do everything better than we can. A more indirect influence of the populace could actually work in the direction of a meritocracy. At the moment, things seem to be flowing in the other direction. We mistrust anyone who surpasses us. Many people seem to believe that the highest achievement is to be perfectly average. That kind of thinking will be our ruin.

[GroG]

George Bush was elected president because of the "officials" you are defending, not the people. Al Gore won the popular vote of the masses of "stupid" people you are so quick to degrade.

I completely reject all of your statements, and I find it sad that you think so lowly of the average citizen of the United States. Sure, there are many shady individuals and less than intelligent people, but on the whole the U.S. is composed of bright, ambitious, and intelligent people.

[Prozerran]

George Bush was elected president because of the "officials" you are defending, not the people. Al Gore won the popular vote of the masses of "stupid" people you are so quick to degrade.

I completely reject all of your statements, and I find it sad that you think so lowly of the average citizen of the United States. Sure, there are many shady individuals and less than intelligent people, but on the whole the U.S. is composed of bright, ambitious, and intelligent people.

I just want to add here that it's kind of a wash. Sure, there are going to be people who base their vote on some non-issue in an election because of some personal belief that this "non-issue" is, indeed, important. But it's a wash because there are others (tremendous numbers of people) who have the intelligence to make an informed decision. They don't need deep political insight. They only need to know what's going on in the world and who has the better direction in which to lead the nation. There's nothing wrong with trusting the public to make these decisions, especially now that practically every living U.S. citizen has access to a library, internet, newspaper, or television. It really is a wash, and this argument that "voters are ignorant", like I've already explained, holds very little weight in this day and age.

Now, if we were back in the 1800's, I'd completely agree with you on this, Ob. I know where you're coming from on stupid voters. There are people I've heard second-hand say that they like Hillary "because they really think she comes across like an honest person." That's great and all, but can you name one thing she plans to do if she's elected? "Huh?"

Seriously, I know what you mean, there's no argument that stupid people exist. It doesn't really speak for the entire population of the United States (like the Eastern Hemisphere of the world would like to believe). Simply put, stop talking about voter stupidity. Yes, it exists. No, we're not surprised. No, we're not all ignorant. A vast majority of us actually have education that gives us the ability to make semi-intelligent decisions, and some of us (this may really shock you) actually make really good decisions.

Why, just the other day, I decided to give my cat some water because his bowl was empty. Had I not, he might have dehydrated and died. Good thing I did my research and learned that cats require water to survive.

(I kid, I kid.) There's a lot more to it than simple ignorance. Politics is a major area of study in universities for a reason, and it's not because it's interesting. It's some of the most boring shit I've ever read, which really explains why some of the most boring professors I've ever met actually teach Political Science. They know their shit, but DAMN, they're boring.

[Oblongato]

I'm sad, too, that I have such a low opinion of the American education system and the educational and intellectual level of the average citizen. Unfortunately, I don't just decide what to believe; my belief is a natural outgrowth of my experience and the information I have collected.

I do recognize that there are some intelligent people out there. More important, I recognize that there are people who are intelligent in some areas while being perhaps not quite so sharp in others. (Aren't we all that way?) The fact remains that I have not been impressed by the logical abilities and political judgment of voters. Access to information does not mean that the information is accessed. Many people are lazy and end up being exposed only the the information served to them on a plate (which is generally propaganda). My position rests largely on this passage from my previous post:

We should not be choosing our most average to lead us; we should be choosing those who can do everything better than we can. A more indirect influence of the populace could actually work in the direction of a meritocracy. At the moment, things seem to be flowing in the other direction. We mistrust anyone who surpasses us. Many people seem to believe that the highest achievement is to be perfectly average. That kind of thinking will be our ruin.

I think a great limitation in American culture is that so many of us think we are pretty great, even if we don't know exactly why. We are told everywhere by our parents, our peers, our teachers, that we should feel we are pretty great. Everyone should have great self esteem. And we react allergically to any suggestion that someone may be better than we are. Now, on the level of rights and human dignity it is definitely wrong to see any individual as being above another individual. But on the level of ability, there are huge differences between individuals.

It is a bit tragic, in my view, that so many Americans do not look up in awe at those of great ability, but instead with mistrust. So many Americans mistake "everyone's got a right to his opinion" for "all opinions are equal." The former is definitely true; the latter is nonsense.

Pride should not be something everyone is convinced he/she has a right to; it should be a precious commodity that is only felt in recognition of great effort. An achievement should not be what everyone does every day, it should be an accomplishment of extraordinary value. Not all soldiers are heroes. Brave, yes, worthy of respect, yes, but a hero is that one soldier who does something so extraordinary that it is handed down in stories for generations.

Average is not extraordinary. I am disappointed by everyone who voted for George Bush, because to me it is perfectly obvious that he is a man of average ability. No, not an idiot, not a moron, but just a regular guy. While I also happen to disagree with George Bush on nearly every topic, I don't see him as extraordinarily evil or stupid, just average. And this is exactly the sort of person who should not be leading the country. We should be choosing brilliant people to lead us, intellectual giants, not normal people. We should not always assume that we know better; we should seek out those candidates in whom we recognize ability superior to our own.

[GroG]

So why do you trust officials with your vote if they were the ones who put George Bush in office? Your logic makes no sense.

What's your definition of ability? That's all of a bunch of bullshit if you ask me. The ability to speak well in front of the masses, that's something to look up to someone to? Or is it the ability to eat fine dinners in the white house with prime ministers and other leaders while people starve in the streets?

Ability doesn't exist - Knowledge, practice, confidence, and ambition do. These people weren't born with all the necessary skills to lead while the rest of us weren't, they had money to go to great schools to train them with the skills while the rest of us settled for less, for some reason. Don't fool yourself into thinking there are people with some sort of ability you couldn't have, that's just not true.

[Oblongato]

Voters' poor choices have put the wrong officials in office. How else would such officials get into, and stay, in office?

As for ability, have you never met anyone with awe-inspiring intelligence and knowledge? There are people out there who do tower above their peers, prodigies who graduated college at 18, award winning scientists, the academically distinguished. People who have come from nothing and achieved everything.

You can have a pretty good life if you are of at least average intelligence, disciplined, ethical, work hard. With knowledge, practice, confidence and ambition you can achieve a lot. But you shouldn't fool yourself. There are people out there with in-born, extraordinary ability, like it or not. Humans do not all have equal capabilities, not physically, not intellectually. Sure, they are all granted equal rights by the constitution, and equal treatment under the law. But the equality ends there. Ability doesn't have anything to do with social class, as you seem to suggest. It has to do with two elements, both important: genetics and upbringing.

One person solves a Rubik's cube in 2 minutes on the first try. Others struggle for months. Some people struggle for years to learn a language that others can pick up in a couple of months. An IQ test may not tell you everything about a person, but there are marked differences between the person who scores 90 and the one who scores 190. All of these are differences in natural ability. Some people have a photographic memory. Did they work hard to get it?

Yes, it is also important to be ambitious, to work hard. But how far an individual gets in a particular field depends to a large extent on whether they have the gift. Just as with physical differences, intellectual differences are a fact.

Many Americans believe that with hard work anyone can achieve the pinnacle of whatever field they choose. But this is an illusion. And it is an illusion that feeds our mistrust of the brilliant. We have elevated average to the status of a virtue. It is not a virtue. Neither is it anything to be ashamed of.

Respect people for who they are, and let the best take the jobs that require the best.

I am not arguing that we should elect someone to the presidency because they can solve a Rubik's cube. But in any field there are those individuals of whom people in the field speak in awe. These are the individuals that should be leading us.

[GroG]

Nope, I haven't. It's because they don't exist - no one is that talented that I feel like I need to bow down to them.

Genetics and upbringing.. that's nice. You disagree with me about the wealthy and high social class and such having opportunities then you say upbringing, as if they aren't correlated. Niiiice.

Anyways, I don't really believe that genetics effect people that much. Sure, it might have small impacts, but you really think a genius is a product of genius man and genius girl having a child? Or you think that a person worked hard, got good grades, learned advanced concepts, and over the years became more and more intelligent?

Just a quick sidebar, but on the way to work the other day I was listening to the radio and they were talking about the TAG (talented and gifted program). Apparently, some school district did a test of this program and if it really worked. They had 2 groups of students - 1 the typical TAG group, the top 10% or so of the class, and the other just a random selection of students - and they put both groups through the program and they were told they were TAG students. By the end of the program, the increase in grades by both groups were equal, basically showing that it's not about the smart kids being in TAG, it's about the attention the students receive, their confidence in being "smart", and the skills they learned.

Your point of view is sad, really. I can't really say much since it's mostly speculative and opinion, but, yeah. I feel sorry for you.

[Oblongato]

Funny how your language gets more and more unpleasant with each succeeding post. What's going on there? Do you think the nastier you get, the more likely people are to think your arguments are good? I think you will discover that the reverse is true.

Feel sorry for me all you like, but you are not supporting your points adequately, or in many cases at all.

There is scientific support for the notion that IQ is largely inherited:

"...The heritability of IQ rises through childhood and adolescence, peaking at 0.68 and 0.78 in adults, leaving the overwhelming majority of IQ differences between individuals to be explained genetically."*

Which makes sense, considering the vast differences in physical makeup found in humans. Some people are 7 feet tall, others only 3. What's the difference? Genetics. Why should the brain be any different from any other part of the body? Obviously, there are differences here as well.

As I mentioned before, it seems to be an aspect of American culture that each individual wants to believe that all are equal, not only in rights but in basic ability. Because anything else would be unfair. Well, life really isn't fair. Fortunately, in many cases people who are shortchanged genetically in one aspect have strengths they can build on in other aspects. But there are also people who just have bad luck genetically. Down's syndrome children are an example. Even Down's children can achieve a great deal with hard work and discipline. But there are limits.

Why can't we simply respect people for their effort? There is no shame in not being presidential material. There are plenty of good people who are hardworking, honest, even ambitious, who don't manage to climb to the top. Is this an injustice? Should we feel sorry for those who don't achieve the dream? Or should we give them credit for their effort and recognize them for their fine qualities, even if they may never become president?

I've made an observation I find interesting. When I talk to people who are really experts in their fields, they are generally not at all reluctant to acknowledge who is better, who is gifted, who is amazing. It tends to be the mediocre who puff themselves up and boast that they're great, or event the greatest. Humility seems to accompany competence.

Once again, there are people out there who stand far above others in ability. Not to acknowledge someone's superior ability is a character weakness. I find it unfortunate that this weakness is so widespread in the U.S. If more people were honest about their own ability and chose representatives not equal in ability, but rather superior, the country would be much better run. (And we shouldn't bow down to anyone, just show respect for genuine ability.)



*excerpted from: Neisser et al., Ulric; Boodoo, Gwyneth; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr.; Boykin, A. Wayde, Brody, Nathan; Ceci, Stephen J.; Halpern, Diane F.; Loehlin, John C.; Perloff, Robert; Sternberg, Robert J.; Urbina, Suzanna (1996). "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns". American Psychologist 51(2): 77-101. 

[GroG]

Yay, I suddenly find myself knee deep in the muddy, never ending debate of nature vs. nurture. Fantastic.

I don't believe in nature having a big effect, and from everything I've read on the topic, it's all theory. So honestly, I won't be convinced that there are people born better. You can believe all you want in it, but it doesn't make it true. While I know the same applies to my point of view, I just figured I'd say that since you keep making statements as if they are fact, which they really aren't.

Secondly, I'm not being rude. I feel sorry for you. You feel inferior to other people when you shouldn't. You also think it's wrong that people don't just step aside for these "superior" people, or that you must acknowledge others as being more skilled than you. What the hell? I've never seen anyone who is just more intelligent or skilled in a field completely than another person, unless they were completely new to the field, in which it was more a matter than experience then intelligence.

Finally, I'd like to steer this back to the political debate we had at hand. If the masses didn't vote for presidential candidates (or officials), and we just let the most intelligent people in to those positions, what's to say those people won't be corrupt? What's to say those people have the right experience? I think the election process, being a long, drawn out process where the candidate must campaign to the masses for long periods of time is good. It allows more time for the media to pinpoint flaws in logic, find scandals in their past, and also for the people to be 100% behind a candidate. If we were to go to war and the person who declared it wasn't elected by the people, why do we feel the need to fight it?

I've made an observation I find interesting. When I talk to people who are really experts in their fields, they are generally not at all reluctant to acknowledge who is better, who is gifted, who is amazing. It tends to be the mediocre who puff themselves up and boast that they're great, or event the greatest. Humility seems to accompany competence.
Whenever I talk to experts in a field about a subject, they don't start meandering about who's a genius and who's not, they just tell me what I've asked and continue working. I think this is because they are really busy, being subject matter experts and all. But who knows, maybe next time I should just go up and ask who's the smartest guy so they can speculate. Because really, at the end of the day that's all this is.. random speculation.

[Oblongato]

Yay, I suddenly find myself knee deep in the muddy, never ending debate of nature vs. nurture. Fantastic.

It's your imagination. You aren't in the debate until you come up with something other than your opinion to put up against my argument (other than sarcasm, which doesn't count).

I don't believe in nature having a big effect, and from everything I've read on the topic, it's all theory. So honestly, I won't be convinced that there are people born better. You can believe all you want in it, but it doesn't make it true. While I know the same applies to my point of view, I just figured I'd say that since you keep making statements as if they are fact, which they really aren't.

You don't believe that genetics have a large effect. Fine. It's a free country and you are entitled to your opinion. But it doesn't count unless you either source your disagreement and/or argue it convincingly with examples. I've given you a source that shows a very strong connection between IQ and genetics. I've argued that there are large, visible, genetic physical differences among humans and that the brain, being a physical organ, also exhibits differences in ability (which is backed up by the above-mentioned source). What have you got to put up against it? Remember, though, that I did not say that it is all genetics, as you claimed. That was a misrepresentation on your part. I said that genetics is one of two major factors, the other being environment.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether it is genetics or environment, whether it is intelligent parents or hard work that makes the difference. (It’s actually clear that it is both.) Whatever the reason, difference in ability exists, and it makes sense to make those with the best ability our leaders.

Secondly, I'm not being rude. I feel sorry for you. You feel inferior to other people when you shouldn't. You also think it's wrong that people don't just step aside for these "superior" people, or that you must acknowledge others as being more skilled than you. What the hell? I've never seen anyone who is just more intelligent or skilled in a field completely than another person, unless they were completely new to the field, in which it was more a matter than experience then intelligence.

If you don't find sarcasm rude, then you are probably correct, though some would also consider it rude simply to misrepresent others’ arguments, as you do here. You should not, for example, generalize that superior ability = superior people. I didn't say it, and here you put the words in my mouth. A rude misrepresentation, if you ask me.

So you've never seen anyone who is just more intelligent or skilled than another person except in the case of lack of experience? You don't get out much, do you? I am not underestimating the importance of hard work, but there are objective measures of success that show marked differences in ability. If your assumption were correct, we would have to flip a coin to decide who gets to be the boss, the team leader, the president.

(I should mention here that I do not believe these decisions are always made objectively [e.g. due to favoritism, nepotism etc.], but they should be.)

And your suggestion that all are equal in ability is an insult to those who work hard and do not reach the top. You are telling people who give it their all and who should be proud of what they have accomplished that they just didn’t work hard enough to reach the top.

And why would I feel inferior? ;)

Finally, I'd like to steer this back to the political debate we had at hand. If the masses didn't vote for presidential candidates (or officials), and we just let the most intelligent people in to those positions, what's to say those people won't be corrupt? What's to say those people have the right experience? I think the election process, being a long, drawn out process where the candidate must campaign to the masses for long periods of time is good. It allows more time for the media to pinpoint flaws in logic, find scandals in their past, and also for the people to be 100% behind a candidate. If we were to go to war and the person who declared it wasn't elected by the people, why do we feel the need to fight it? .

My point is that the “masses,” as you put it, are not doing a good job of judging the character or ability of the people who represent them. They do not demand accountability, as they should be doing. The campaigning you refer to consists to a far-too-large extent of worthless stump speeches, sound bites, direct mailings, TV commercials and other things that amount to pure propaganda. Informed voters know that they must look elsewhere to find the truth. If enough voters did that, money would be a much smaller factor in winning an election than it is today. Because the money is used simply to buy propaganda, and as long as people are ignorant and/or stupid enough to be fooled, propaganda will continue to win elections and those who are able to buy the most propaganda will have a distinct advantage. This, for me, is proof that voters are not competent to fulfill their role in choosing the best qualified (i.e. the representatives with integrity and ability in the necessary areas) to represent them.

I have also said repeatedly that raw intelligence (IQ) is not the only factor that should be considered when choosing representatives. Integrity, speaking ability, background knowledge etc. should all play a large role.


Whenever I talk to experts in a field about a subject, they don't start meandering about who's a genius and who's not, they just tell me what I've asked and continue working. I think this is because they are really busy, being subject matter experts and all. But who knows, maybe next time I should just go up and ask who's the smartest guy so they can speculate. Because really, at the end of the day that's all this is.. random speculation.

So what you are saying is that you have never had a conversation with experts in a field. Obviously, the comments I refer to were not just in passing at work. I think if you went up to experts and asked whom in their field they respect most, you would indeed get an answer. And perhaps you are mistaking judgments about ability for random speculation simply because you refuse to acknowledge the obvious: that there are significant differences in ability, which result from a combination of hard work and genetics.