Reply #55: Whether we should have superdelegates or not, they exist [View All]

[NoPasaran]

And they should be free to play the role for which they were created. And frankly, that role requires having the cajones to tell the people that they are making the wrong choice.

Why should we rely on the "popular will" rather than relying on the rules that were established for this process?

I'm from Texas, where Clinton won the primary---which I suppose is the best expression of the "popular will". But that very same evening, a subset of the voters, those who had the time and inclination to attend their precinct conventions, came back and started our convoluted convention process which seems likely to give Obama a majority of delegates when all is said and done. How dare those caucus voters overturn the sacred "popular will"? Shouldn't they be forced to change their votes to reflect the popular will? Of course, not, those are the rules we have in this state and I accept the outcome even though it is not what I would have preferred.

And looking at the Texas example, where we see this discrepancy between primary results and caucus results, I think we have good reason to question whether the results from any pure caucus state actually reflects the "popular will". Perhaps if those states had primaries, the results would have been different. Yet that is how we select those delegates, and they will take their seats at the convention, and vote for their choice, however imperfect the process that selected them.

The superdelegates exist as a final firewall to prevent the Party from making a terrible mistake. To insist that they should go along with that terrible mistake because it would be the popular thing to do does them and our Party a huge disservice.