A California Super Delegate Asks—How Should We Come to a Decision?

Super-delegates should be obligated to perform due diligence to represent as much of the view of the general public as they can, without limiting, supplementing, or otherwise distorting such a view in any way. Period.

It's the least they could do to compensate for the voting forum that got them there in the first place. An enhanced democratic process might alternatively only allow a super-delegate to function as they do by opening that voting forum to the appropriately scoped larger general public without restriction. Specific constituencies would not be given any weighting beyond their proportional head count in the general public. Then, in such an idealized democracy, a super-delegate vote based only on his/her own judgment would become much more tolerable.

Cast your vote for the winner of the nationwide popular vote, thereby helping to ensure that the superdelegate vote doesn't go against the will of the people. I believe Sen. Boxer is on record as saying that she will do the same.

I believe that elected officials should in almost all cases vote their conscience. That is why we elect people in fact. We DO trust your judgment and that is why you got our vote in the first place. I have my own things to deal with at my own job and I'm happy for you to run this aspect of my life. I'm happy that someone is fixing the traffic lights, repairing the roads, policing the streets and putting out fires. For my part, I'm happy to pay taxes so that I don't have to worry about any of this. :)

That being said, I think that if we're having an election, it should be popular vote. I think if either delegate ended up with more delegates in the elections and then the super delegates swung in an entirely different direction, you'd see a firestorm of people angry and upset that their voice didn't matter. If that happens, it might be enough to swing a lot of votes to McCain. Not out of spite, but out of feeling abandoned by a party that we've dedicated time, money and votes to.

This is my 2nd comment. The delegates from Florida and Michigan should not be seated unless both candidates have a chance to participate in an approved process. In both Michigan and Florida the DNC concluded that the delegates in those states would not be counted. In fact, Senators Clinton and Kucinich were the only candidates on the Michigan state ballot. If the process is changed to allow the states' delegates it is only fair to allow both candidates to campaign and win votes.

my question is about the process. will your vote at the convention be something that is a public record. Like a vote in a representative body (i.e.congress) or will your vote be tallied in secret and presented as part of a whole. if it is not public than this kind of debate is moot for obvious reasons.

If the super-delegates choose anyone other than the candidate who won the most delegates, then this is no longer a democratic organization and no longer deserves to exist. Fake democracy is everywhere in our country from labor unions, to NGO's, to elections. Democracy is the last untarnished ideology to survive the 20th century and it must be defended at all costs. Without democracy this country is nothing.

This has been a much longer and protracted campaign than origially anticipated, and how voters in California voted on Super Tuesday may have changed now, due to more exposure to the candidates. This cuts both ways, as there are many voters for both candidates that would like a re-do. The super delegates should vote on
the basis of who is the most honest and trustworthy. The rest will fall into place.

Second "follow the money" and try to select a candidate that is not already so severely compromised due to "big" money. We urgenly need a new order, and regardless of the rhetoric, money is what really talks.

"Cast your vote for the winner of the nationwide popular vote, thereby helping to ensure that the superdelegate vote doesn't go against the will of the people. I believe Sen. Boxer is on record as saying that she will do the same."
My problem with voting for the winner of the nationwide popular vote is that the voice of the "less popular" group is negated. Some thoughts: 1-Consider proportional representation in Super Delegate decision making - if the popular vote is split 40/60, surely the 40% deserve to have a voice via their Super Delegates? 2-I believe Super Delegates should have the ability to vote their conscience if they so choose. I feel I must trust these delegates to make informed decisions(perhaps more informed than mine). 3-I don't want to see the voters from Florida and Michigan removed from the election process and hope there is a way their voices will be heard at the convention - if indeed, these candidates are both still in the running at convention time. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with voters being exposed to more discussion and comparison between these two candidates.

Vote with the people that will vote for you next time. If you haven't been chosen by the people, you're in a very unfortunate position for the party.

Regardless of the reason for inventing super delegates, I don't think you could have thought up anything more contrary to American Democracy.

Time to reinvent yourselves, oh dem leaders.

Looking back sadly,

A former dem

Post a comment