So the superdelegates in my state

[Coyote_Bandit]

have determined that they will not support the candidate who overwhelmingly won the state primary.

Why the fuck should I bother to ever again vote in another Democratic primary election? The value of my vote is diminished by party rule.

Better yet why should I vote for these asshat superdelegates to be re-elected? They are supposed to represent me - not substitute their opinion for that of the voters.




FWIW, I'm not saying who won my state or who the suyperdelegates are supporting because it really doesn't matter. This is being experienced by supporters of both candidates. Also, I do not favor one candidate over the other and I will vote for whoever gets the party nomination. I just question the ability of these superdelegates to substitute their judgment for that of the voters.

If the superdelegates are going to decide the nomination then there really is no reason for them not to get off their collective lazy asses and make a decision. The candidate needs to begin preparations for the general election and the party needs time to heal its divisions. Something about this primary fiasco makes me think that the Democratic parety is entirely lacking in leadership.

[Liberal Gramma]

1. Same here

Our two senators are supporting the candidate that DIDN'T win the vote in our state. Maybe your state and mine will offset each other?

[DJ13]

2. they will not support the candidate who overwhelmingly won the state primary.

What about the 200 super delegates that chose to endorse Hillary long before a single vote was cast?

[Coyote_Bandit]

7. I don't think

very highly of them either. Needless to say.

[MadBadger]

3. What state?

[Coyote_Bandit]

4. Doesn't matter

for reasons already stated.

Superdelegates are going to Obama in states Clinton won and superdelegates for going to Clinton in states Obama won.

[MadBadger]

6. I knew you would say that.

[Coyote_Bandit]

8. I really don't

have a dog in this fight.

I will vote for whoever gets the Dem nomination. But I would have preferred a candidate other than either of the two remaining alternatives.



Edit to add that when my primary was held I was able to vote for alternative candidates who had not yet withdrawn - and I did just that.

[Adelante]

9. Obama has a new SD in Nebraska

Ben Smith has a note on it:

ALSO: A Nebraska superdelegate, Audra Ostergard, comes out for Obama.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Remainders_But_what_does_it_mean.html

I'm out of OPs for the day.

[lisa58]

5. they can always switch

[Coyote_Bandit]

13. Perhaps

some of their constituents should remind them of that.....

[thevoiceofreason]

18. When Houston Obama supporters reminded SJLee of her district's vote

They were considered rude and impertinent.

She's backing Clinton but her district went heavily for Obama. I think this is not uncommon nationwide (Heck, today the OK governor endorsed Obama). I like what Barack says about it -- Sure, they should consider the vote of their constituency when they decide, but that's not the only factor.

[Debi]

10. The super delegates are split three ways Obama/Clinton/uncommitted

And I don't mind a bit.

They don't have to make a decision until the first round of voting at the National Convention.

[Coyote_Bandit]

15. I realize that

I also realize that waiting until the convention puts the candidate at a disadvantage in preparing for the general election.

It also delays the process of healing the divisions within the party.

If Dems lose in November it will be their own undoing.

[NJmaverick]

11. There is a reason the Dems did poorly under this asshole's leadership

[Lyric]

12. ....

I just question the ability of these superdelegates to substitute their judgment for that of the voters.

Honestly, that's what they're supposed to do. Why else would superdelegates exist, if not to make sure that there's a way to fix it if the voters make a mistake and choose someone that they (they superdelegates) truly believe cannot win the general election?

It would make no difference to me who won your state, or who your superdelegates are supporting. I personally believe in the superdelegate system. I think it's both fair and effective, and I would continue believing so no matter what the result might be. If you don't like the superdelegate system, take it up with your state's representatives to the DNC internal policy-making folks. But don't criticize them for doing precisely what they are supposed to do under the current system.

[Coyote_Bandit]

17. Then

there is really not much reason for me to bother to vote in primaries. Superdelegates can always substitute their judgment for that of the voters - and in doing so diminish the value of the votes cast.

What do I know. I'm just another dumbshit voter. No reason not to be completely apathetic when my vote is discounted because somebody thinks they know better. Simple fact is that superdelegates see the world from a different perspective than I do and they cannot determine who best represents my interests and priorities.

[Raven]

14. You have asked a very good question and I am glad you kept

it neutral. That way, maybe we can have a rational discussion about this. I too, would like to know how these SD's get off voting against the peoples' will in their states. Why don't we just let SDs appoint the Presidential nominee and forget this primary voting shit. It really makes no sense to me in a democracy.

[Coyote_Bandit]

20. I know supporters of both remaining candidates

in several states who are facing the same issue. And not the least bit happy about their superdelegates choices.

It is not at all democratic. It ignores voter desires.

[onenote]

27. what would the point be of having SDs if all they did was follow the vote in their states?

If you want to argue that we should just get rid of superdelegates and have only pledged delegates (either selected on a winner take all basis like the repubs or a proportional basis as is our party's current approach), I can see that. But if you're going to have superdelegates and expect them to simply follow the vote in their states -- a vote that is never unanimous, of course -- well, that doesn't make much sense and its not the point of the superdelegates.

Not saying the SD approach is a good one or bad one. Just saying that expecting them to be the one "winner take all" aspect of a system that is not winner take all is arguing for a de facto change in the nominating process. If its going to be changed, it should be done above board, after full discussion, and prospectively, not retroactively.

[Coyote_Bandit]

29. As I said somewhere in this thread

I think we should ditch the superdelegates and award delegates from each state on a winner take all basis. That is most representative of what will occur in the general election.

As is votes in the Democratic primaries are diluted and worth less than a full vote. They are diluted by superdelegate votes.

[onenote]

39. and on a going forward basis, I don't disagree

But I don't think we can/should change the system midstream.

[Coyote_Bandit]

40. Four years from now

if the same nominating system is in place I will not bother to vote in the primaries. Not worth the effort.

Come November I may withhold my vote from some of my state superdelegates. Since they are so damn smart then they don't need me or my vote.

[SunsetDreams]

16. elected delegates represent the people

Supers are in place for all the states IMO

[Coyote_Bandit]

21. Meanwhile

I get to vote on whether or not a lot of these superdelegates are re-elected.

Not sure I want to do that since they chose to disregard the votes of the overwhelming majority in this primary election. They are not representing the views of their constituency in the nominating process.

[Avalux]

19. Superdelegates do not represent the people; pledged delegates do.

I agree the superdelegates should not decide the nomination by giving it to the person without the most pledged delegates and popular vote.

I don't think they will do that.

[Coyote_Bandit]

22. In this state

the superdelegates are not going to the candidate with the largest number of popular votes and pledged delegates in our state primary.

[Avalux]

30. They don't have to endorse according to their state.

As superdelegates, they have the latitude to do what they wish. There are no DNC rules tying them to their states.

[Coyote_Bandit]

32. That may be

Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

There are more superdelegate votes in this state than pledged delegate votes. Why the fuck should I bother to even vote in a primary? Of the superdelegates who have announced their intentions 75% are supporting the candidate who came in more than 15% behind the primary winner. My vote isn't worth shit in the primary here.

[Avalux]

33. Your vote is represented by a pledged delegate.

I understand what you're saying, but the way superdelegates vote doesn't negate the vote of the people in a particular state.

[Coyote_Bandit]

36. There are twice as many

superdelegate votes as pledged delegate votes in this state.

My vote is worth only a third of a vote. Why bother?

[lojasmo]

23. "Overwhelmingly won the state primary"

I guess that's very likely Obama, then. ;)

[karynnj]

24. ALL of your superdelegates?

Other than Illinois, I don't think there are states where ALL the superdelegates are voting one way. In my state, NJ, Clinton won - but the last time I saw the superdelegate list, she had a far higher percent of them than of the vote in the primary.

I personally think there should be no superdelegate votes period - so I hope all of them vote with the winner of the pledged count.

[Coyote_Bandit]

25. There are more

superdelegates voting for the loser than for the winner. And even more unannounced superdelegates.

I think the primary process would be better served without the superdelegates - and with a winner take all allocation of delegates. That is a far better measure of what will occur in the general election.

[Yael]

26. You can keep track of that here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Superdelegate_Transparency_Project

[Coyote_Bandit]

28. Thanks for the link

Although it clearly has some distressing information. The candidate who won the primary vote in this state by more than 15% trails in delegates. WTF? Explanation: 75% of the announced superdelegates are supporting the candidate that did not win.

[jmg257]

31. Your vote does count - for selecting pledged delegates. Superdelgates' votes

count as much as those pledged delegates. And like you, they too CAN vote the way they want to.

Superdelegates are SUPPOSED TO take MANY factors into consideration, not just the "will of the primary voter" (although that should be important - and will be especially for elected superdelegates).

And believe it or not there is/was a reason or 2 for instituting such a system.

[Coyote_Bandit]

35. This state

has more superdelegate votes than pledged delegate votes. 75% of the announced superdelegate votes are going to the candidate that lost by more than 15%.

Let's say the state has 10 pledged delegates. And 20 superdelegates. Pledged delegates are awarded 6 to the winner and 4 to the second place finisher. And 15 go to the second place finisher. So the candidate who won by a significant margin gets eleven of the states delegates and the distant second place finisher gets 19 of the states delegates. That's fucked up. And a vote by the average citizen is worth only a third of a vote. Why bother?


Actual numbers are different but the ratios hold true in this state.

[JVS]

34. How overwhelmingly?

[Coyote_Bandit]

37. My state primary had more than two candidates

The winner was more than 15% ahead of the second place finisher.

[JVS]

38. Are you in SC?