baron-pierreIV Posted March 3, 2008 Report Posted March 3, 2008 Question for the week: Like the Democractic Party in the US, should the IOC have super-delegates in terms of selecting its Olympic host cities? What are super-delegates for those unfamiliar with the set-up in the Democractic party. From Wikepedia: After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party implemented changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination. These comprehensive changes left some Democrats believing that the role of party leaders and elected officials had been unduly diminished, weakening the Democratic tickets of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. In 1982, a commission chaired by former North Carolina Governor James Hunt created superdelegates. Under the original Hunt plan, superdelegates consisted of 30% of the total delegate count, but when it was finally implemented in 1984, superdelegates consisted of 14% of the total count. The number has steadily increased until today, where superdelegates are approximately 20% of the total delegate count. [3] In the 1984 election, the major contenders for the Presidential nomination were Gary Hart and Walter Mondale. Each of them won some primaries and caucuses. Hart was only slightly behind Mondale in the total number of votes cast, but Mondale won the support of almost all the superdelegates and became the nominee." I say yes. The IOC should have super-delegates able to trump the recent, dumb decisions of the body (i.e., Nagano 1998, Athens 2004, Torino 2006, Beijing 2008, London 2012, Sochi 2014!!) I, of course, am volunteering my services to be the IOC's first Super-Delegate and a S-D for Life!!
FYI Posted March 3, 2008 Report Posted March 3, 2008 Who do you think should've won '04, '06 & '12 then?
Scotguy Posted March 3, 2008 Report Posted March 3, 2008 You think Beijing was a mistake? I think this will be a legacy games, remembered for years to come, the Barcelona of this decade
FYI Posted March 3, 2008 Report Posted March 3, 2008 Considering the IOC's rhetoric, out of all the 2008 Bidders, Beijing was the bid, by far, with the most work to do, & the city with the utmost pollution problem, not exactly athlete friendly. So by technical merits alone, Beijing was not the best choice out of the lot for the 2008 Games. Legacy, politics & geography are all totally different issues entirely.
Scotguy Posted March 3, 2008 Report Posted March 3, 2008 Its all about the games themselves, the athletes, and the future legacy for sport in the host country. Past issues do not matter at this point in time. The Olympics in China will do more to highlight the problems of pollution etc more than if they were not awarded the games
FYI Posted March 3, 2008 Report Posted March 3, 2008 No they're not. The pollution is still gonna be there. Beijing needs at least another 20 years to even come close to other cities in the world, as far as their air quality is concerned. They weren't past issues when they were 'bidding' for the Games 8 years ago. They're gonna have to postpone or even move some outdoor events indoors because it's so bad. The Olympics aren't highlighting anything in China other than the Chinese government itself.
baron-pierreIV Posted March 3, 2008 Author Report Posted March 3, 2008 Who do you think should've won '04, '06 & '12 then? '04 - I would've given it to Rome. '06 - Then '06 would've gone to Sion. '12 - Paris, of course. Just practicing my Superdelegate prerogatives in case the call comes.
number1stunner Posted March 3, 2008 Report Posted March 3, 2008 - Russia is both in Asia and Europe - So what? - So that
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.