Take the Pledged delegate Pledge!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Poll question: Take the Pledged delegate Pledge!

Since it's impossible for Obama or Clinton to win the nomination with elected ("pledged") delegates, Super Delegates will provide the margin one way or another.
( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4429219 )

There is no persuasive reason to think Obama or Clinton will have more elected delegates, or more Super Delegates. It is UNKNOWN.

So this is a good time to take the Pledged delegate Pledge.

I will consider the winner of the primary delegates to be the candidate that should win the nomination. That doesn't mean it will happen, but if my candidate loses among the elected delegates, I will not undergo a conversion and start arguing that it's obvious that Super Delegates should decide the nomination. (This doesn't mean you cannot secretly hope for your candidate to win by any means nessecary... just that you won't lecture other people about the moral and ethical nuances of the process based on which candidate various rules turn out to benefit.)

[Tarc]

1. I will take Option #3: I will not whine like a child over 30-year-old party procedures

The tallies should be quite tight going into the convention, and the superdelegates are, and should not be, under any obligation to vote according to the primary results.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Excellent point.

I am not particularly outraged by Super Delegates as a concept, and if one approves of the system that's a reasonable view. I would prefer that the Supers reflect their state or district results on the first ballot (where applicable), but I can see other arguments.

As long as that approval or disapproval or any given system isn't determined only after it becomes apparent which candidate benefits.

I added an option for "Super Delegates are perfectly okay."