If you were a Super Delegate how would you vote?

[techs]

FYI-The one time in recent history this was an issue was when Walter Mondale recieved more votes in the primaries but Gary Hart had more delegates, though neither had a majority.
The Super Delegates went with the winner of the elections by actual votes.

So,
Place your vote.

 

[Lemon law]

To Techs,

1. Super delegates will pay no attention to this poll so why have it?

2. You are missing a choice anyway. To some extent the safe way for a Super Delegate to vote is vote the way their district went in the democratic primary.

3. At this point in time, a unity vote of super delegates could put either Clinton or Obama over the top right now. But with no real way to have them in one place until the democratic convention, no central method outside of the
DNC exists to exert command and control, with Howard Dean being the possible power broker.

4. Its way premature, the somewhat safe course for a super delegate is to wait until the primaries end before deciding.
Anything else is blatant bias and bad for party unity.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hillary should steal the election just like Bush did. The people don't matter. Of course half the people have figured that out and don't vote anyway.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I would vote the way the people who I represent want me to. If I can't do that, then I need to resign without casting any vote.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: techs
FYI-The one time in recent history this was an issue was when Walter Mondale recieved more votes in the primaries but Gary Hart had more delegates, though neither had a majority.
The Super Delegates went with the winner of the elections by actual votes.

So,
Place your vote.

I would just ask you how did that go, but I am going to bust you on this.

Your logic is astounding. Mondale didnt have 40 more delegates than Hart. He was 40 short from the nomination. Will Clinton be 40 short of the nomination? No. Will she even be 40 delegates behind Obama? No.


You also go on how caucuses are unfair, etc. They also skew the popular vote.

If Obama wins 33 states and how ever many territories and has the elected delegate lead, it would be political suicide for the dems to nominate Hillary. If they did that it'll be President McCain. If Clinton gets the nomination through the way you feel she should, she'll get beaten badly in the general election.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: techs
FYI-The one time in recent history this was an issue was when Walter Mondale recieved more votes in the primaries but Gary Hart had more delegates, though neither had a majority.
The Super Delegates went with the winner of the elections by actual votes.

So,
Place your vote.

Super Delegates go with whoever pays them the most.

All indications show that Obama can throw the most money their way.

 

[Farang]

Hard to say because the answer for me is the same no matter which criteria I choose - Obama.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I would vote the way the people who I represent want me to. If I can't do that, then I need to resign without casting any vote.

This is the fair way to do it IMHO but the DEMS made up this system to thwart the people's choice.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I would vote the way the people who I represent want me to. If I can't do that, then I need to resign without casting any vote.

This is the fair way to do it IMHO but the DEMS made up this system to thwart the people's choice.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a somewhat trollish way to put it, Woodie1. And for that matter, the repubs have a similar system with super delegates even if they are not called that.

And for that matter, a very strong case could be made for the super delegates having the function of ratifying the peoples choice.

Speaking of a general case in which a given political party starts the primary process with many candidates, and as the primaries continue, those candidates get winnowed to the two or three strongest. Especially if the winnowing process occurs late, or the party is deeply divided, its often possible that no candidate will arrive at the convention with a majority of the votes. In congressional elections, States often resolve that with run off elections with the top two vote getters, but no such mechanism exists for Presidential candidates.

But in a deadlocked convention, anything becomes possible. Just a casual read of the American history of deadlocked conventions show exactly how the people's will is often thwarted. Perhaps the best example is the 1940 Republican convention where Wendel Wilkie
got the nomination without even running in the primaries or running at all. How in the world can anyone consider that fair? Or an expression of the peoples will?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I would vote the way the people who I represent want me to. If I can't do that, then I need to resign without casting any vote.

This is the fair way to do it IMHO but the DEMS made up this system to thwart the people's choice.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a somewhat trollish way to put it. And for that matter, the repubs have a similar system with super delegates even if they are not called that.

And for that matter, a very strong case could be made for the super delegates having the function of ratifying the peoples choice.

Speaking of a general case in which a given political party starts the primary process with many candidates, and as the primaries continue, those candidates get winnowed to the two or three strongest. Especially if the winnowing process occurs late, or the party is deeply divided, its often possible that no candidate will arrive at the convention with a majority of the votes. In congressional elections, States often resolve that with run off elections with the top two vote getters, but no such mechanism exists for Presidential candidates.

But in a deadlocked convention, anything becomes possible. Just a casual read of the American history of deadlocked conventions show exactly how the people's will is often thwarted. Perhaps the best example is the 1940 Republican convention where Wendel Wilkie
got the nomination without even running in the primaries or running at all. How in the world can anyone consider that fair? Or an expression of the peoples will?

The republicans have "unpledged RNC delegates", they however do NOT = 20% of the delegates.

 

[Fern]

I'd hold off until all the primaries were finished in June before deciding.

We've got several different categoreis of super deleagtes.

1. State party activists. Were I one of these I believe I'd feel inclined to vote the way my state/district did. you may not be selected (voted) as a super delegate again if you go contrary to your people.

2. Incumbant politicians. If I were up for relection this time, I'd prolly be inclined to vote for the strongest candidate (best chance to get the most popular vote in my state/district, not necessarily nationally). Often the Presidential candidate influences the rest of ticket's success.

3. Former Pres etc. More freedom here, IMO. Clearly here I would focus on it purely from a "national" perspective. What's best for the party as a whole across the nation? I'd be very wary of voting against Obama, no matter how slim his pledged delegate lead (or if a tie). I wouldn't want to alienate the black voters, the independant voters or the young voters. Could cause long-term problems for the party.

Fern

 

[FoBoT]

whoever techs doesn't like, just to piss him off

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: techs
FYI-The one time in recent history this was an issue was when Walter Mondale recieved more votes in the primaries but Gary Hart had more delegates, though neither had a majority.
The Super Delegates went with the winner of the elections by actual votes.

So,
Place your vote.

Super Delegates go with whoever pays them the most.

All indications show that Obama can throw the most money their way.

I think you missed the boat on that one.

 

[Lemon law]

Delegate counts represent CNN's most recent total for each candidate. There are currently 4,049 total delegates to the Democratic National Convention, including 3,253 pledged delegates and 796 superdelegates. The total number of delegate votes needed to win the nomination is 2,025. There are currently 2,380 total delegates to the Republican National Convention, including 1,917 pledged delegates and 463 unpledged delegates. The total number of delegate votes needed to win the nomination is 1,191. More about the delegate selection process

So 796/4049=19.66% of DNC delegates being super.

So 463/2380=19.45% of RNC delegates being unpledged.

Well Wreckem is right in saying---The republicans have "unpledged RNC delegates", they however do NOT = 20% of the delegates. And in fact he is a whole 0.21% righter about the dems being more undemocratic that the repubs. And a whole 0.55% on the truth side of 20%.

Its possible the unpledged delegates may have to decide the GOP nomination.

 

[Pabster]

techs, Obama wins either way.

He leads in both total votes and total delegates. So it really doesn't matter :laugh:

 

[nageov3t]

if I were a senator, congressman, or governor, I'd vote with the popular vote in my district/state/area of coverage.

if I were a national party figure not serving in an elected office, I'd vote for whoever I thought the best candidate was.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I would vote the way the people who I represent want me to. If I can't do that, then I need to resign without casting any vote.

This is the fair way to do it IMHO but the DEMS made up this system to thwart the people's choice.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a somewhat trollish way to put it, Woodie1. And for that matter, the repubs have a similar system with super delegates even if they are not called that.

And for that matter, a very strong case could be made for the super delegates having the function of ratifying the peoples choice.

Speaking of a general case in which a given political party starts the primary process with many candidates, and as the primaries continue, those candidates get winnowed to the two or three strongest. Especially if the winnowing process occurs late, or the party is deeply divided, its often possible that no candidate will arrive at the convention with a majority of the votes. In congressional elections, States often resolve that with run off elections with the top two vote getters, but no such mechanism exists for Presidential candidates.

But in a deadlocked convention, anything becomes possible. Just a casual read of the American history of deadlocked conventions show exactly how the people's will is often thwarted. Perhaps the best example is the 1940 Republican convention where Wendel Wilkie
got the nomination without even running in the primaries or running at all. How in the world can anyone consider that fair? Or an expression of the peoples will?

Is there an answer to the question posed by the OP in there somewhere?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Delegate counts represent CNN's most recent total for each candidate. There are currently 4,049 total delegates to the Democratic National Convention, including 3,253 pledged delegates and 796 superdelegates. The total number of delegate votes needed to win the nomination is 2,025. There are currently 2,380 total delegates to the Republican National Convention, including 1,917 pledged delegates and 463 unpledged delegates. The total number of delegate votes needed to win the nomination is 1,191. More about the delegate selection process

So 796/4049=19.66% of DNC delegates being super.

So 463/2380=19.45% of RNC delegates being unpledged.

Well Wreckem is right in saying---The republicans have "unpledged RNC delegates", they however do NOT = 20% of the delegates. And in fact he is a whole 0.21% righter about the dems being more undemocratic that the repubs. And a whole 0.55% on the truth side of 20%.

Its possible the unpledged delegates may have to decide the GOP nomination.

There is a big difference between the two parties. Dems Super Delegates are by and large party leaders and elected officals. Thats not the case in the Republican party. A more accurate comparison between super and unpledged is 796 to 123. 123 unpledged to the RNC are party leaders, etc. The rest of the unpledged are elected just like the pledged, they are just "unpledged."

 

[dennilfloss]

I would vote for the candidate who is the most electable as president. Aftrerall, winning the presidency and governing the country for 4 years is what counts.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
I would vote for the candidate who is the most electable as president. Aftrerall, winning the presidency and governing the country for 4 years is what counts.

Exactly. It is their job to vote for the candidate that they feel is best for their party, using their own best judgement. It was never intended that they should just go along with voters.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
I would vote for the candidate who is the most electable as president. Aftrerall, winning the presidency and governing the country for 4 years is what counts.

Exactly. It is their job to vote for the candidate that they feel is best for their party, using their own best judgement. It was never intended that they should just go along with voters.

The problem is that what is best for them may not be best for the party.
And what do you think they are looking out for?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Exactly. It is their job to vote for the candidate that they feel is best for their party, using their own best judgement. It was never intended that they should just go along with voters.

Obama gained 9 supers this week, Hillary lost 5.

I guess they're starting to see who is "best" ... both for the party, and the country.

EDIT: Before I'm accused of making up numbers, this was reported on Meet The Press this morning. Go watch the podcast if you missed it.

 

[Rio Rebel]

I don't think all the superdelegates have an obligation to vote with the rest of their state. Some of the superdelegates are there because of a national role (like former democratic party chairmen, or former President Clinton).

However, I don't think they should just vote their conscience. They should not swing the election away from the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates. It will be disastrous if they do that.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: loki8481
if I were a senator, congressman, or governor, I'd vote with the popular vote in my district/state/area of coverage.

if I were a national party figure not serving in an elected office, I'd vote for whoever I thought the best candidate was.

 

[waggy]

i find t his rather funny that it is even a discussion after the last election.


IF the super delegates go against the popular vote its not going to be pretty. but should be entertaining.