How should the Super-Delegates decide their votes at the convention?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Definition of terms:
Pledged Delegates are delegates chosen in primaries and caucuses.
I am calling them "elected delegates" here to avoid confusion.

Current Status:
Obama and Clinton are razor close in elected delegates.
Hillary has a bit of a lead among Super Delegates, but most SDs are undeclared so far.

Since nobody knows who will win the most pledged delegates, or how the SDs will go,
this is a good juncture to go on record... before we know who benefits and it becomes
a candidate vs. candidate thing.

SDs can vote for whoever they want.
This poll is about what you think they should do.
(Since this is a useful, non-partisan poll, please help keep it kicked)

[phantom power]

1. Doesn't option (1) essentially make super-delegates irrelevent?

(or is that the point?)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. You are right. I added an option supporting the concept of independent SDs

[robbedvoter]

31. Which is the beauty of it - they should be. Popular vote should decide.

[Deep13]

2. SD's should use their best judgment in selecting the better candidate. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. If your reply preceded my adding that option, I apologize.

[Deep13]

9. Thanks for adding it. nt

[Jack Bone]

11. My post , #10, did as well..thanks for adding it!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. brain-lock, not malice. I have no problem with them being independent agents

[newmajority]

16. Well, that's the entire question, isn't it?

Who the hell says THEY have the best judgment? Or for that matter, that they would actually use it. As opposed to voting however a third party (the DLC, for example) would tell them to.

Superdelegates are on the list along with electro-fraud machines and frontloaded, corporatist financed primaries, as far as roadblocks go to a truly fair electoral process.

[Deep13]

17. "THEIR best judgment" means the best each individual SD can do.

My post was a direct answer to the OP's question.

[mitchtv]

5. I took door number 4

you play by the rules you started with.

[mitchtv]

6. I took door number 4

you play by the rules you started with.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. .

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. x

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. ..

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

26. alerted!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. Take it to freeperland, you swine

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. OMG! I couldn't agree more.

[donheld]

7. The candidates should not get those delegates just because

They should go the way the vote goes.

[joshcryer]

8. What about an option where SD must vote for candidate with popular vote?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. That would be somewhat arbitrary because of the difference between caucuses and primaries

[joshcryer]

22. Since caucuses aren't representative of the population, I think it should go like this:

Delegates if member has the popular vote.

Popular vote if the member doesn't have the delegates.

[Jack Bone]

10. They need to stand up and support whomever they believe in..

Enough of this pandering to be on the side of the eventual nominee. If we, as citizens, are supposed to pick a candidate after 10 months of campaigning. These "SUPER delegates" should have enough of an idea, by now, to support someone.

[boston bean]

14. I think the most rational is to go with who won the total vote. nt

[hfojvt]

15. What if we just thought of it as another primary in a big state?

Candidates lobby and campaign in that state just like any other. Super-delegates make up their mind just like any other voter. One huge difference is that a super-delegate can be bullied or bought or feel like they owe one side or other, Given their status and past, that must give a huge edge to Hillary. But they have made some enemies too. Then, too, there is the fact of their district/state.

Obama won my state by 73% to 26%. For my Governor or Representative to endorse Clinton, even if she has the lead in delegates, seems kinda undemocratic to me, as well as a political risk. They both endorsed before the primary here. Should they go with the total delegate count, or with the percentages of their own districts? Tammy Baldwin endorsed Hillary. Should she stay with Hillary if her district goes heavily for Obama?

Suppose the delegate count is 1750 to 1730 after all the primaries are done. Should all of the superdelegates go with the leader even though it's only a 20 vote margin? Primary/caucus turnout is low anyway. We had 600 at my caucus. Yet our Congressional candidate got over 9,000 votes in this area in 2006 and over 10,000 in 2004. Should the 600 have more say than the 10,000?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. You raise a lot of good points.

[Vinca]

18. If they don't opt for #1, the party will be torn apart. nt

[sunonmars]

23. Rubbish, this is precisely part of the reason of SD's to sort out a final decision

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

24. I seems to have been more a wish (or threat) than a prediction

[pampango]

29. Agree. Supporters of both "first of a kind" candidates will be extremely

disappointed, if they feel they have "won" the primary/caucus process only to be denied by the party establishment. Perhaps they should not feel they have "won" anything, because according to party rules it isn't over yet, but many will feel that their hard earned victory has been stolen.

The complicating factor is that they are both great candidates who could beat McCain, so it will hard for the SDs to convincingly argue that they chose the #2 candidate in terms of elected delegates, for electoral reasons.

I didn't think the Republicans had a chance in the 2008 elections, but we could still pull their fat out of the fire, even though we have two such great candidates.

[cooolandrew]

30. The first one is the only answer, anything else is unjust and undemocratic.

[cooolandrew]

32. One man (or woman) one vote. America can't talk to the world of democracy till it does that...

...They must vote with the people no question to it. The word democracy in definition is people rule. There can't be a veto on that.