Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

'Superdelegates' invented to multiply power of Democrat insiders

To The Daily Sun,

In a letter to the New Hampshire Union Leader, former New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Kathy Sullivan defended "superdelegates."

Sullivan practices law for property owners and real estate interests. She also works "in matters involving election law, campaign strategy and messaging." Evidently, "Confessions of a Super Delegate" is "messaging." See http://www.wadleighlaw.com/nh-lawyers/kathleen-n-sullivan/

"Superdelegates" violate "One Man (Person), One Vote", the spirit of all universal suffrage movements. The phrase is in Supreme Court rulings applying the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution to redistricting decisions (Reynolds v. Sims 1964). When one "superdelegate" vote equals thousands of others, we have peculiar gerrymandering, based not on geography but on party positions.

Sullivan claims "superdelegates" never went against the popular vote. But "superdelegates" began in 1984, possibly pushing Mondale over Hart. They could affect a close race. The DNC favors Clinton, with most "superdelegates" for Clinton. Millions would notice any "superdelegate" putsch. "Superdelegate" success might be their undoing.

If "superdelegates" cannot sway elections, why (do they) exist? Why does Sullivan bother? The "superdelegate" was invented in 1984 to multiply insider power when the Democratic Party overturned the McGovern-Frazer Commission work after 1968 which enhanced the popular vote against party insider influences.

On Feb. 23, Clinton and Sanders had 51 elected delegates each. However, Clinton had 451 "superdelegates" and Sanders just 19. Should insider votes count more than ours?

Defenders like Sullivan should be convinced to abandon "superdelegate" status and the mechanism should be abolished.

David Ecklein
Rumney

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 217

I voted with the expectation that Obama's term was 4 years

To The Daily Sun,

Some of the oddest reasoning found in the letters section comes from self-appointed experts on the Constitution dwelling in the right-wing camp. The latest round seen in the last couple of weeks had several claims that I found entertaining. There are the usual harebrained ones about Obama attacking the Constitution, but since the death of Justice Scalia, the rhetoric has reached new depths of half-baked reasoning and to be honest, utter vacuity.

One writer in particular, echoing the petulant cacophonies of the Tea Bag echo chamber, seems to think the voters in the 2016 election should have a say in who gets to fill a vacant seat in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017. When I voted for Obama in 2012, I voted with the expectation that the next president's legal responsibilities were for four years, not three. That is the law.

Try to grasp this, campers: The voters did have their say in 2012 and that duly elected president's duties and responsibilities, according the United States Constitution, are expected to be carried out for the entire term of office. It is in the job description. "He shall."

James Veverka

Tilton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 271