When Superdelegates Make Their Decisions, It is Not Pledged vs. Popular.

[tekisui]

They are to vote their conscience. They will weigh a variety of issues and angles to make their choice, just as you do when you vote.

They could decide based on National Polls, Electoral College Maps, Fundraising ability, Likability, Friendships, Political allies, Political Enemies, Pledged Delegate Count, Popular Vote Count, Who they feel will benefit themselves or their cause, who they feel will benefit the Party and on and on.

The only rules they have to follow, at this point, is their conscience.

[rinsd]

1. Thank you.

People do not seem to understand why the Supers were created and what their role is supposed to be.

That said, do I think we should eliminate them from the process for the next election? Yes.

Because if they are no more than a rubber stamp for the pledged delegate leader they are superfluous.

[tekisui]

2. I would vote to get rid of them.

[rinsd]

3. They are either a subversion of the will of the voter or a superfluous rubber stamp.

Their time has past.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I would probably either cut back their numbers

of give them partial votes to dilute their numbers. I see some wisdom in their role, but they should not have as much influence as they do under the current rules.

But I would also work to cut back the role of caucuses in our nominating system, if I had my way.

[SoCalDem]

19. They should be forced to declare, once there are two candidates

and let the states decide....knowing the actual totals before they vote..

IF something horrible happened later, a revote of supers could still avert a catastrophe, but having "secret votes" stashed out of sight is underhanded and unfair.

I prefer NONE, but if they have to stay..make them commit EARLY so people know exactly where their candidate stands..

It's chickenshit of them to hold out, fearing their OWN blowback if they pick the wrong person.. If they are that wishy-washy, who wants them or needs them, as a super-anything.?

[Jersey Devil]

4. Oh yes, an American version of the House of Lords

Why, it harkens back to the good old days when the common rabble were not allowed to pick their own Senators but left that weighty task to those who knew better.

[tekisui]

7. Yep. American Royalty. Their vote counts thousands of times more than yours.

It's a stick in our eyes really.

So, they get to votes twice, huh? Once as a regular person, once as a superduper person.

[goletian]

5. thanks capn obvious. heres another obvious one for you.

the conscious of the supers tells them they will lose dems en masse if they disenfranchise the entire country by ignoring the delegate lead created by voters for obama.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Like Nevada and Texas were disenfranchised?

Or like Michigan and Florida were disenfranchised?

[tekisui]

16. And, I agree.

I just think the debates are silly. We go round and round, the supers know what the score is, and they know the will of the people.

[anigbrowl]

6. Conscience. This has been a public service spelling announcement.

[XemaSab]

11. I was like, "Let's hope they're conscious."

:P

[ORDem]

13. Yeah, thanks for catching that, saved me a post, lol. Oh, and for you chronically bad spellers

it's "lose" not "loose" when someone doesn't win. :eyes:

[tekisui]

14. Thanks,

:blush:

[Asgaya Dihi]

9. True enough

If they want to they can cast their vote due to the phase of the moon, if they like the eye color of the candidate, or based on anything else they'd like to, including popular vote. So can we as citizens.

But in the end the only thing that matters is the final delegate count.

[Thepricebreaker]

10. There are no rules for thier decisions.. They can base it on who is better looking if they want..

[Austinitis]

12. It's going to be popular vote. We've already seen this argument play out two months ago, and

the claim that super-delegates should do whatever they want lost out. Remember? The Obama people saying "Don't alienate new voters!" and "Show them that their vote matters!"

And everyone bought into it.

[tekisui]

18. It is going to be 300 individuals for many different reasons.

[onenote]

17. exactly right

[bobbert]

20. I really think they are just there to go with the leader in pledged delegates

They are there because someone needs 1/2 + 1 delegates to win. If there are 3 strong candidates, it will be nearly impossible for someone to get 1/2 + 1 (Edwards realized this) so the supers will be called on to make sure someone gets there 1/2 + 1. Also, if there was an Operation Chaos type situation that worked where someone like Huckabee had a ton of delegates, the superdelegates would be called on to make sure Huckabee wasn't the nom. They really are there for protection and to make sure that there is a clear winner at the end of the first round of voting.

That's just my opinion, even though I may get attacked from both party's supporters for that one.