Dean: Super-delegates don't have to follow the voters

[antigop]

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/dean_superdelegates_dont_have.php

In an endorsement of the Clinton campaign's position on super-delegates, Howard Dean affirmed that supers do not have to follow either the pledged delegates or the aggregate popular vote in making their decisions.

"They should use whatever yardstick they want," Dean said. "That's what the rules provide for."

Links to the following on time.com
http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/02/dean-superdelegates-can-do-what-they-want/

[GarbagemanLB]

1. They still won't do it. Not with the money Obama has proven he can pull in.

[antigop]

3. I hope you are right. n/t

[GodlessBiker]

10. I think fund-raising potential will have a lot to do with their decisions.

[dogday]

Well there you have it...

If this comes down to SD, it is going to become one big war on the convention floor... I so hope it does not come down to this..

[goddess40]

2. They don't but they will cause the party to implode if they don't

It won't be pretty if they don't. I plan on asking those running at our state convention who they are supporting. They don't have to tell me but if they want my vote they'll have to tell.

[antigop]

4. but they can still switch. And are you going to hold them accountable if they do?

<edit to add> And are you going to check? And if you plan to hold them accountable if they DO switch, how, exactly, are you planning to hold them accountable?

(Not trying to be snarky -- legimate questions.)

[HereSince1628]

9. Most people don't even participate in county and state party activity

they haven't a clue about how to hold a super-delagate accountable.

Lacking understanding the angst will end up directed at the party. The party is coming to one of those critical places where fracture is possible. In the US system that means some group in the party is going to be ground up in the insinkerator disposal machine.

[antigop]

11. Exactly why I asked the question. Thank you. But it's not just the super-delegates who can switch.

n/t

[HereSince1628]

12. True enough. But I do believe that voters have a reasonable expectation

that the votes they cast will be represented as they voted.

Failure to do that isn't going to hurt the delegates. Most people have no idea who the delegates are that represent them. What will happen is a general punishment of the Party by people becoming disaffected.

Constantly making it a part of people's active consciousness is like rubbing the edge of a piece of flint with a knapper in preparation of chipping off a flake.

[antigop]

13. Voters may have a "reasonable expectation that the votes they cast will be represented...

as they voted".

But if the voter doesn't actually check, how will the voter ever know that the "expectation" is "reasonable"?

[HereSince1628]

18. They know who won in their state, they may know more, but most don't

The expectation of the majority will be that the proportion of votes cast by their state's delegation at the national convention will be proportional to the votes cast in the primaries.

In a representative democracy such as ours I do think that is the 'reasonable' expectation of the voters. True there is little to prevent delegates from doing otherwise. But among those few things is an awareness that it can destroy the trust that voters have in their party.

True too, the good of the party is a nebulose thing. So too are all estimates of the damage that can be done to the party.

The two campaigns players are lining up on opposite sides of making projections of those probabilities.

The need to fight that didn't get satiated following the 2006 election are being replaced with fighting within the party.
This will be a mob action, once set in motion no one will really know where this will lead. But within our system, only 2 parties can really play in a manner that generates effects.

[antigop]

20. But you are talking about the proportion of votes cast...I'm talking about individual delegates

The person whom I responded to said he/she would demand to know how a delegate-to-be would vote before he/she would vote for said delegate.

So for THAT delegate --- would the person who voted for that delegate even know how THAT delegate voted? And if the delegate switched, would the people who voted for THAT PARTICULAR delegate even check to see how the delegate even voted.

I agree with you that there is fighting within the party and "no one will really know where this will lead". But, imo, the longer it goes on, the less time and resources are being spent campaigning against McCain.

[bobbert]

5. Yes, they can use whatever yardstick they want

but I see many choosing the yardstick of pledged delegates.

[antigop]

6. Welcome to DU, bobbert. n/t

[GarbagemanLB]

8. BINGO

[beachmom]

7. He is correct according to the rules. However, the politics are a different story.

Unlike us voting in primary states, their ballot will not be secret.

[madfloridian]

14. Right, He said last night he was quoting the rules about SDs.

That he would follow the rules.

[Vinca]

15. I can't imagine the kind of hell that would break loose if the SDs

overrule the elected vote. It might be the rules, but it might also do great harm to the party.

[book_worm]

16. It's not one way you know. This has always been the rule and that means some Hillary delegates

could go for Obama too. Why do people think that only Obama delegates will switch? if we've seen switches it has been from Hillary to Obama. My guess is that if it goes to convention most delegates will stay with who they were elected to represent.

[Lucky 13]

17. So is he not dead to you anymore?

:eyes:

[antigop]

19. Say WHAT?? When did I ever say Dean was "dead"? n/t