What should state’s superdelegates do?
February 17th, 2008 – 12:22 PM by Dennis J. McGrathToday’s story by Washington Correspondent Kevin Diaz examines the status of Minnesota’s Democratic superdelegates — the members of Congress and other party officials who get to cast votes at the nominating convention as they see fit.
The role of superdelegates is not new, but the attention being paid to them is — because this year they may ultimately decide who get’s the Democratic nomination.
The debate surrounding superdelegates has raised lots of questions. Among them:
– Should superdelegates exist?
– Are they merely a device by party officials to retain control over the nominating process in a tight battle like this year’s, or do they serve a useful and defensible purpose?
– Should superdelegates be bound by the outcome of the primary or caucus in their state?
– If so, should Minnesota’s superdelegates be apportioned in line with the caucus vote, or should it be winner-take-all?
Sen. Barack Obama won 67 percent of the Minnesota caucus vote and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won 32 percent. If the state’s superdelegate vote is apportioned — as the party does for pledged delegates awarded on the basis of primary and caucus results — that would give Obama 11 of the state’s 16 superdelegates and Clinton the remaining five.
6 Responses to "What should state’s superdelegates do?"
Superdelegates should honor the vote results from their district or state. The consequences of voting differently from the voters would be extremely detrimental to the citizens in our democracy as well as to our Democratic Party. In MN, there should be no doubt as to where the superdelegate votes should go: to Senator Barack Obama.
Superdelegates should follow how the citizen of their state voted. If they do not they should not hold office. I always thought they held office to do the peoples work if they choose not to follow “the people” and follow their own choice then they should not be in public office and should be voted out next election. Those who are not in office like Walter Mondale I don’t know what you do about them. They should vote as MN voters voted and all should got to Obama.
The whole purpose of the superdelegates is to take advantage of the “wisdom of the party elders”, not to have them echo the results of a given primary or caucus. They should vote their convictions. If that runs counter to the “electorate”, so be it. Superdelegates came into being as a result of the McGovern debacle of 1972. He was a very likable candidate with who’s views I agreed, but totally unelectable. The superdelegates came along in an attempt to temper the emotionalism that selects candidates who simple cannot win. I am not saying either candidate now running is this year’s McGovern (in fact, I am undecided at the moment), but I do trust the wisdom of the elders, maybe because I am now an elder myself, but not a party elder.
to Andy Marlow so you are saying no matter what the “people” want a superdelegate knows better than “We the People” and they have more “wisdom”? Why then not just let the “superdelegates” vote and why bother with the primary and caucus’s? Who says the “elders” have the wisdom and they are not just being bought? I want MY Convictions - 1972 is not 2008 we have come a long way at least we hope we have. I don’t want the old party guard to make that decision for me.
Jackie,
What I am saying is that if the “electorate” cannot reach a conclusion with the vast preponderance of delegates whom they choose, then we should leave it to the superdelegates. Remember superdelegates don’t come into play unless no one candidate receives a mandate from the “electorate”. In every previous election year since superdelegates came into being, the “electorate” has decided. In this year it may be that neither candidate can achieve the number of delegates needed just through primaries and caucuses — so the superdelegates play a role. That’s the way the process was designed and how it should function.
“We the people” do not vote in a caucus or primary. It’s “we the democrats” or “we the republicans”. In the case of caucuses it’s a small self-selected group of activists for one candidate or another, or one issue or another. It’s not broadly representative of all the people. Nor should it be. They are selecting the candidate to represent their party. It is a party decision. Maybe it should be different. If you want to have a true national Presidential primary, fine. I might be for that. But until the system changes, I’ll put my trust in the the “party elders”.
I understand how the party caucus system works, and while I agree that the process doesn’t commit the delegates (or the superdelegates) to vote anything but their convictions, it is clear that Minnesota Democrats turned out in large numbers with Obama as the winner. If he were a “likable candidate who can’t win” I would support the superdelegates in voting their conscience for someone else, but it seems clear that he has become a very viable candidate, and he should be the choice of the Minnesota superdelegates, unless they made early public commitments to a different candidate, in which case I wouldn’t expect them to switch their loyalties until their candidate is out of the running.