Do you like hte way Barbara Boxer decided her superdelegate vote?

[MonkeyFunk]

She said she'd go the way the state went.

There seems to me to be three "good" ways a superdelegate could cast his/her vote:

1) go with the winner of the regular delegate count
2) go with the winner of the popular vote
3) vote the way their state voted

Each one of those options seems "fair" to me, but they could have differing results.

If we go with the first option, Obama is slightly ahead.
If we go with the second option, Clinton is slightly ahead.
If we go with the third option, given the votes already cast, Clinton has 242 superdelegates, and Obama has 171.

I suspect that whoever comes out the loser will argue for a different method, but I'm pointing out that there isn't one single, simple, obvious way for a conscientious superdelegate to cast his or her vote.

[thunder rising]

1. Boxer was always going to side with the DLC ... the excuse would change accordingly

[Neecy]

3. huh?

Boxer is hardly DLC.

[nickinSTL]

4. You're not SERIOUSLY saying Boxer sides with the DLC?

Boxer is one of the few Senators with a spine.

[democrattotheend]

14. Here, here

Wish she were running for president instead of HRC.

[ReadTomPaine]

10. That's Feinstein, not Boxer. Get your CA Senators straight.... n/t

[HeraldSquare212]

2. I think it has to be how their constituents voted, for those holding office.

But now that we know who the Rep nominee is, why couldn't it be whomever has the bigger lead over McCain? I realize things change, etc., so that's not necessarily reliable, but still it seems better than any of the other ways of picking.

[Benhurst]

5. I've never liked the idea of superdelegates.

One man (person), one vote is the only way to go as far as I am concerned.

I also think the Electoral College should be abolished and the president elected directly by the people, with runoffs for the top two candidates if no one receives a majority.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. Nonetheless

the superdelegates will likely be in play this year (and the electoral college will never go away).

What I'm saying is that there are at least three "good" ways for a superdelegate to vote, and they can result in different outcomes.

[vi5]

7. I'd prefer they go with the way their state voted...

...meaning whoever the majority of the people in their state voted for that's who the superdelegates should go for as well. It's the most straight forward democratic way to do this without controversy in my eyes especially if the superdelegates end up deciding it. Even if that means that Clinton gets more, and even if it means she ends up the nominee which I don't personally want. And I'd obviously prefer each state does it the same way.

Of course what I want doesn't really matter at this point so....whatever.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. And it's conceivable

that that method would give the nomination to the person who has neither the most regular delegates or the greatest popular vote.

My point is only that ANY method chosen will be controversial - if they even choose a method. They may just vote the way they want to vote.

[democrattotheend]

13. I think they should go by delegates

because if one candidate has a majority of pledged delegates and the superdelegates throw it the other way, it's going to get really messy. But I respect the way Boxer chose to do it...seems fair enough, for now.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. And my point is that no matter WHAT method they choose

it will be controversial unless one candidate has the popular vote, the regular delegate vote AND the superdelegate-by-state vote.

[sfam]

9. Unless they endorse someone really early and actively support them, I think...

they should go with how their state votes. I don't know or care who this position supports better, but it makes sense. If you're really hard over for a candidate (Clair McCaskell for Obama, for instance), than you should absolutely endorse and actively support them. But if you really have no clue who to support, or just don't care that much, waiting it out for the best deal seems wrong to me. Just go with your state - or city in the case of Governors, or district in the case of house folks.

[ORDagnabbit]

11. Boxer is dumb as post and most everyone knows it...

[MonkeyFunk]

18. Umm.... yeah.

SOMEBODY'S dumb as a post here, but I don't think it's Boxer.

[democrattotheend]

12. Option #2 would not necessarily favor Clinton

Because the computation the networks did of the popular vote does not factor in some of the caucus states. Someone on DailyKos did an analysis and figured out that Obama would probably be leading in the popular vote if you factored those in. This poster multiplied Obama's percentage in the caucus states that don't release vote totals by the estimates of how many people turned out, and discovered that Obama would come out slightly ahead in the popular vote.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/8/154648/7272

[Telly Savalas]

15. The superdelegate system is flawed, but I agree with Boxer's decision.

(I just wish Californians would have chosen Obama.)

I'd argue that superdelegates from the House should go with the way their district voted, and not the state.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. I don't know that every state

tallies votes by district. It's possible, but I know my state reports results by county, not by congressional district.

[johnnydrama]

20. SD's

If the super delegates vote the way their states did or their counties did, then that's pretty much the same as not having them at all.

Why not just strip them all of their vote, and reapportion them by state.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. Well

a lot of people here are having conniption fits at the thought of that happening.

The point I'm making in this thread is that there are various ways for the superdelegates to cast a vote that would be considered "fair" a priori, but could still have an outcome that would cause people here to shit a brick.

[ozone_man]

19. I'd say go with the district vote.

In the case of senator (Boxer) or governor, then they should have the liberty to vote the way the state went as measured by delegates or by popular vote.

But eventually we need to disband the super delegate process. It's not a democratic method.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. The system has never yet

chosen someone who didn't get the most delegates AND the popular vote. It may not happen this year, either.