How will you feel if Superdelegates become the deciding factor?

[FlyingSquirrel]

Poll question: How will you feel if Superdelegates become the deciding factor?

As evidenced by the following analysis, it may in fact occur this year.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4374482&mesg_id=4376124

For now, let's leave out the possibility that Michigan and Florida may become factors as well.

How will you feel if 796 people are allowed to choose our nominee?
Or if, say, a single person (a one-vote majority of the superdelegates needed) is allowed to choose our nominee?

Regardless whether that nominee is Clinton or Obama.

[DesertFlower]

1. not okay. it pisses me off. nt

[Snarkoleptic]

2. I'd prefer if the popular vote were the deciding factor.

[The Delegates]

3. Er...no

We are a republic for a reason. Popular vote is bad.

[newmajority]

4. It would be worse than the 5 Bush Crime Family flunkies deciding Florida

Because this would be alleged "Democrats" possibly installing a Republican president.

[LVjinx]

5. It's definitely not ok

I support Hillary, who is generally conceded to have more superdelegates, and I think it is definitely NOT ok. Democrats should be able to decide, not the party elite. The voters should decide. I'm all for letting Michingan and Florida in - dissing those states would send a terrible message. But if Obama wins, and then Hillary gets the nomination on a technicality due to superdelegates, I will be as upset and horrified as any Obama supporter would be.

This year, we can't afford to have our nominee going into the general with half the democratic base believing the vote was rigged.

[jwirr]

6. When and how did our party decide to use superdelegates? nt

[BootinUp]

8. 1970

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2007/12/history-of-primaries.html

[BootinUp]

7. OK if they pick Hillary, lol.

[FlyingSquirrel]

9. Ha!

Since I'm still uncommitted (though leaning Obama) I can probably say that it makes me uncomfortable. Then again, without superdelegates we could have a situation where it comes down to a single state and we get something like Florida in 2000. What's the difference?

Wow. What if we ended up having a brokered convention even WITHOUT Edwards in the race? And he still has some delegates and can pick some more up on Tuesday. Maybe he could become a factor after all, even after dropping out.

It's crazy.

:silly:

One thing I am CERTAIN of. I wouldn't mind too much if they decided to include Florida in the totals. But I strongly feel Michigan's delegates should not come into play as a deciding factor. Many voters stayed away when their candidate (Obama & Edwards) were not on the ballot, and I really think that only having Clinton on that ballot led to a flawed result. It would be wrong for Michigan to be the deciding factor in this decision. (Sorry, Michigan voters!)

[Renew Deal]

10. Ultimately it would be a bad thing.

We don't want that to happen.

[Hoof Hearted]

11. People only like the system when it's gaming their way.

They pout when it's not.

I didn't see a lot of outrage from Obama supporters when he lost the popular vote but ended up with more delegates.

The system is what it is.