I think we now see the wisdom of "superdelegates"

[Rex_Goodheart]

The nomination should not automatically go to the person who peaked earlier and then whose deficiencies might be later revealed (that's a statement of principle, and doesn't necessarily mean any present application).

I think the Party is well advised to consider who won what, where, and when and then try to extrapolate a winning strategy.

[Goblinmonger]

1. How about to the one that gets the most votes?

There's a concept. And the superdelegates seem to cut against that pretty firmly.

And "peaking" a month later is better when the election is still 8 months away means what, exactly?

[RiverStone]

2. That sure as hell better be the formula!

Anything other than the popular vote determining our nominee (i.e. political trickery) would result in a mass exodus from the party, a loss in the GE, and very possibly a lost majority on The Hill.

Let the people decide - not a small group of party leaders.

[Goblinmonger]

3. that's my hope

Plus, having the superdelegates decide this would chase off all the young voters that Obama is bringing in and that would suck.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

7. RE: having the superdelegates decide this would chase off...

Where have you been? The only way the super delegates will not decide this is if the pledged delegates vote against the will of the people in the second vote. Neither of the two remaining candidates will be able to close the deal on pledged delegates alone. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Obama needs those super delegates just as desperately as Clinton does.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Unless the one of the two

that does NOT have the majority of votes, states, and the delegate lead steps down so that this doesn't have to be a brokered convention.

[jobycom]

4. I'd like that system better if all votes were cast on the same day.

And in the same way. Ban caucuses, hold all primaries on the same day, and let the voters decide. As it is, there are so many different factors that go into the final tally that it's not just an election. Later states have different candidates than early states (when candidates drop out). Caucus states aren't secret ballots of the general voting public, they are open ballots sometimes cast in full view of everyone. Pressures, time constraints, and negotiations all play a major role. (One caucus here in Austin had the police called to break up a fight). Contrast that to a closed primary where only pre-registered Democrats can vote, or an open primary where anyone can choose a primary on election day, thus allowing crossovers to vote.

Let's say you have a candidate chosen largely by crossover votes in one state. Should that state's voters have the same weight as pre-registered Democrats in a caucus?

The system is a hodge-podge. There is no way to measure who has the most votes since there are so many different methods. Strike caucuses, and Obama's numbers fall dramatically. Strike crossovers, and his numbers fall even more. Strike superdelegates, and Clinton's numbers fall. Whose falls the most is impossible to say in this system, given the different methods of choosing.

Superdelegates are a safety feature, to balance out other inconsistencies in the system, and to prevent the system from being hijacked by crossover votes. Not the ideal solution, but the system is so far from ideal that no one solution will make it so. It's a negotiation, and a lot of factors will go into its resolution, including public pressure.

We need to fix it in the future, but for now it's the system we have, and changing the rules everyone agreed to from the beginning isn't a fair solution.

[BooScout]

5. What about the one getting the most votes from registered Dems?

:shrug:

[Goblinmonger]

6. I don't even know where you want to go with that

So Wisconsin votes are out since we don't have to register for a party and have an open primary?

Hillary certainly would have to give up some votes, too, by whatever calculus you are using, I'm sure.