Candidate with the most pledged delegates and/or the more popular votes should get the nominatio

[George_Bonanza]

I don't see a fairer way to decide this. Superdelegates should be forced to back the candidate who has the most pledged delegates and/or the greater number of votes. Winning more states means jack because as great as Alaska and Idaho are, land does not equal people. If the primary season ended right now, Obama should unequivocally be the nominee because he has 250 000 more popular votes than Hillary, AND he has more pledged (aka democratically earned) delegates. In a tight race, that should be more than enough proof that he's earned the nomination.

[rodeodance]

1. guess Teddy Kennedy will have to vote for Hillary

[George_Bonanza]

2. So be it, says this Obama supporter

That's much more preferable than some party insiders overruling millions of American citizens.

[rodeodance]

4. I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4526958#4526958
4526958, I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Posted by bigtree on Sun Feb-10-08 05:39 PM

if the SuperDelegates were apportioned as he said he wants them . . .


Obama said superdelegates should follow the wishes of the voters.

"My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voter," he said.

When it was noted that Sen. Ted Kennedy is one of his superdelegate supporters, even though voters handed Massachusetts to Clinton on Super Tuesday, Obama said, "Well, I mean, we can make arguments back and forth on this."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/09/2008-02-09_hillary_clinton_and_barack_obama_battle_.html

[TexasObserver]

3. States DO matter, and little ones have more stroke than big ones.

We have a constitution. It has a form of election. It's the electoral college, and it's not going to change because it would require a constitutional amendment, and that can never happen, since the little states won't approve the change.

So, your premise is faulty. We do not have "one man (or woman), one vote."

We need little states because they are the diffence in winning and losing. We consistently get our asses handed to us because we fail to win Montana, or Wyoming, or Alaska, or Kansas, or Idaho.

As for the notion that whoever WINS the most delegates in authorized contests should be the nominee, I'm good with that.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. The constitution

is silent on political parties and primaries.

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. Several states are adopting laws to award their electoral votes...

to the winner of the national popular vote. By the 2012 election, enough states for a clear electoral college majority will have done so...without a COnstitutional amendment. (Just FYI)

[TexasObserver]

8. Oh, really? Name the states that have done so.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. So far, Maryland. New Jersey, and Illinois

the plan is under consideration in several more states at present.

[HeraldSquare212]

7. But caucus states have less voters.

If anything, it should be by percentage of those who voted, instead of absolute numbers.

[spindrifter]

9. It's time to get rid of the superdelegate idea. n/t

[cloudythescribbler]

10. The OP is right, and we should gather a PETITION here at DU to that effect nt

[Hippo_Tron]

12. I say we flip a coin

If this thing is brokered then come convention time they will basically have gotten more or less an even share of the delegates and voters meaning that half the party supports one half supports the others. In that case lets just say heads one gets it tails the other gets it.

Seems fair to me.