How Should Super Delegates Vote?

[Wakie]

Obviously one of the biggest potential issues facing the Dems in their convention is the possibility of it being decided by the so-called "super delegates".  I've heard a lot of people arguing this issue and I'm curious how everyone thinks[/u] the super delegates should vote if it comes down to them at the convention.

Discuss.

Please note, it is possible for one candidate to have more votes nationally but fewer pledged delegates.

[perdedor]

I would say option 4, but there are many super delegates that are not even elected officials. To put it into perspective, the Georgia state-chair of AFLCIO is a superdelegate.

[J. J.]

I would say option 4, but there are many super delegates that are not even elected officials. To put it into perspective, the Georgia state-chair of AFLCIO is a superdelegate.

He might be a member of DNC, elected by the state party.  I think that is the group that is the bulk of the super delegates. 

I say that they should use their judgment, which might mean voting for Obama.

[Jake]

Ideally, they should be disenfranchised. If not, they should vote their conscience.

[Inmate Trump]

There shouldn't even be delegates, much less superdelegates.

This is for the same reason there shouldn't be an electoral college.  Elections should follow the will of the people based on the popular vote.  By this method, the actual winner of the popular vote will actually win the election--what a thought!

(I realize superdelegates are what's kept Hillary in the lead up until now, and they're also what she'll need if she's to win the Democratic nomination.  I know that, but I still think the very idea is completely ridiculous.  And if she loses the popular vote but wins the nomination, my feelings on that matter won't change.)

[perdedor]

This is for the same reason there shouldn't be an electoral college.  Elections should follow the will of the people based on the popular vote.  By this method, the actual winner of the popular vote will actually win the election--what a thought!

Yes, what a thought. Mob rule. I'm sorry, but I dislike the idea of telling 49.9% of the country "better luck next time"...regardless of who is in the majority.

[TomC]

Senators and governors should vote the way their state voted, House members the way their district voted. DNC members should vote their conscience, but give weight to the way their state voted.

[JohnFKennedy]

This is for the same reason there shouldn't be an electoral college.  Elections should follow the will of the people based on the popular vote.  By this method, the actual winner of the popular vote will actually win the election--what a thought!

Yes, what a thought. Mob rule. I'm sorry, but I dislike the idea of telling 49.9% of the country "better luck next time"...regardless of who is in the majority.

What about telling c. 48% of the country 'better luck next time' because that's what you would have had to say to Al Gore and John Kerry supporters in 2000 and 2004 respectively and that is using the current electoral college system.

The polarised nature of American politics at the moment pretty much means that you have to say 'better luck next time' to c. half the voting population in any Presidential election and the only difference between that and Congressional/Gubernatorial elections is that you're saying it to fewer people.

[Josh/Devilman88]

How their state voted.

[perdedor]

This is for the same reason there shouldn't be an electoral college.  Elections should follow the will of the people based on the popular vote.  By this method, the actual winner of the popular vote will actually win the election--what a thought!

Yes, what a thought. Mob rule. I'm sorry, but I dislike the idea of telling 49.9% of the country "better luck next time"...regardless of who is in the majority.

What about telling c. 48% of the country 'better luck next time' because that's what you would have had to say to Al Gore and John Kerry supporters in 2000 and 2004 respectively and that is using the current electoral college system.

The polarised nature of American politics at the moment pretty much means that you have to say 'better luck next time' to c. half the voting population in any Presidential election and the only difference between that and Congressional/Gubernatorial elections is that you're saying it to fewer people.

That is true as well, which is why I support proportional distribution of electoral votes.

[TheresNoMoney]

Either 2 or 4 is fine with me.

[Jake]

That is true as well, which is why I support proportional distribution of electoral votes.

What's the point of that?

Distributing electoral votes proportionally just means that a less bastardized version of the Electoral College is used; one that is kind of like using the popular vote, but is unbalanced.

Consider this, Iowa has 7 electoral votes (1.3% of the total EVs), but it's population in 2000 was only 2.926 million (1.0% of the total US population) - meaning Iowa already is distorting the proportionality of the vote as a vote in Iowa is worth more than one in any larger state.

Now, if you distributed those 7 EVs proportionally in 2000, Gore would be entitled to 3.3978 EVs while Bush would be entitled to 3.3754 EVs. Now, you can't have 2/5ths of an elector, so you give Gore the extra electoral vote meaning he gets 4 and Bush gets 3. Now, that's more proportional than Gore getting 7 and Bush 0, but Gore's voters still are over-represented and Bush's voters are under-represented (Gore is entitled to a .0224 EV margin, but he instead receives a 1.0 EV margin); Indeed, for Gore to "earn" 4 EVs he would need to secure about 57% of the vote.

Now, what's the point of a system that tries to establish a more proportional distribution of votes, but still maintains the unproportional aspects of the system, namely that it strongly distorts the popular vote to award electoral votes.

In any case, how is using the electoral vote total to determine a winner any less of "mob rule" than using the popular vote? Because if someone wins 268 EVs and the other guy wins 270 EVs, you're telling 49.8% of the country "better luck next time".

[Torie]

None of the above. They should exercise their own best judgment, all things considered.

[Beet]

Ideally, they should be disenfranchised. If not, they should vote their conscience.

I find myself agreeing with Jake; though if I were a pledged delegate I would vote for the candidate, if such a candidate existed, who got both the most pledged delegates and the most votes.

[perdedor]

That is true as well, which is why I support proportional distribution of electoral votes.

What's the point of that?

Distributing electoral votes proportionally just means that a less bastardized version of the Electoral College is used; one that is kind of like using the popular vote, but is unbalanced.

Consider this, Iowa has 7 electoral votes (1.3% of the total EVs), but it's population in 2000 was only 2.926 million (1.0% of the total US population) - meaning Iowa already is distorting the proportionality of the vote as a vote in Iowa is worth more than one in any larger state.

Now, if you distributed those 7 EVs proportionally in 2000, Gore would be entitled to 3.3978 EVs while Bush would be entitled to 3.3754 EVs. Now, you can't have 2/5ths of an elector, so you give Gore the extra electoral vote meaning he gets 4 and Bush gets 3. Now, that's more proportional than Gore getting 7 and Bush 0, but Gore's voters still are over-represented and Bush's voters are under-represented (Gore is entitled to a .0224 EV margin, but he instead receives a 1.0 EV margin); Indeed, for Gore to "earn" 4 EVs he would need to secure about 57% of the vote.

Now, what's the point of a system that tries to establish a more proportional distribution of votes, but still maintains the unproportional aspects of the system, namely that it strongly distorts the popular vote to award electoral votes.

In any case, how is using the electoral vote total to determine a winner any less of "mob rule" than using the popular vote? Because if someone wins 268 EVs and the other guy wins 270 EVs, you're telling 49.8% of the country "better luck next time".

I didn't say that proportional distribution of the electoral votes was a perfect system or without fault. You would certainly have to round off the number of electors earned because, as you said, you can't have a fraction of an elector, which ultimately mean that the candidate with the majority of the votes  in a state is going to have a slight advantage. However, is this really not a vast improvement upon what we have now? A system in which you could take 49.99% of the vote in a state and potentially walk away with nothing. Do you think it's fair that in 2000, 527 voters determined the distribution of 4.647% (25) of the nation's electoral votes?

[opebo]

There's no 'for Obama' option.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

However they want to, so the Dems. don't nominate somebody like Dukakis or Carter again - seriously, it's in the best interest of your party (unless they nominate Hillary, then they're a bunch of morons who handed the White House to the Reps again).

[Mr. Morden]

Here's some extreme superdelegate weirdness:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/hillary_adviser_harold_ickes_t.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Jake]

I didn't say that proportional distribution of the electoral votes was a perfect system or without fault. You would certainly have to round off the number of electors earned because, as you said, you can't have a fraction of an elector, which ultimately mean that the candidate with the majority of the votes  in a state is going to have a slight advantage. However, is this really not a vast improvement upon what we have now? A system in which you could take 49.99% of the vote in a state and potentially walk away with nothing. Do you think it's fair that in 2000, 527 voters determined the distribution of 4.647% (25) of the nation's electoral votes?

Sure it's an improvement if you want a more proportional system. But if you want the most proportional system, why not just elect the President based on the popular vote? That's what doesn't make sense about the proposal. If we're going to scrap the current system, why replace it with something that's still flawed by the very nature that it uses electors?