|
|
| Also listed in: 23rd LD Democrats |
Probably for the first time since the creation of super delegates, the Democratic party is faced with the real possibility that the final presidential nominee can be chosen by super delegates against voters voices, represented by pledged delegates. If that happens, it might cause quite a rupture within the Democratic Party, and it should.
We citizens elect two kinds of officials, I think.
One kind is to provide leadership and vision, such as presidents, governors and mayors, who make decisions with which voters may or may not agree, with powers we voters instilled to the office for which we elected them.
The other kind of officials are elected to represent voters, to provide checks and balances to the executives we elected. These elected officials, such as senators, representatives and council persons, have a duty to represent the voices of the voters who elected them.
While senators like Cantwell and Murray of Washington who support Hillary Clinton, and Kennedy of Massachusetts who supports Barack Obama, have the right to endorse and vote for their respective choices in caucuses and primaries, as elected officials to represent their states, I believe they have an obligation to cast their super delegate votes to follow the direction of the voters they are supposed to represent.
A party with the name "Democratic" in it, should be courageous enough to rid itself of super delegates and trust that the democratic voters are sophisticated enough to choose the right president for this country.
I believe the super delegates are holding their breath and praying it doesn't come down to them.
For many it is a dilemma of the worst kind, do they support who they believe will be the best nominee or support the candidate their consituents voted for. Either way there could be a backlash.
But let it be known nobody had anything to say about this untill now. If Obama was blowing Hillary away or she was blowing him away nobody would have anything to say to this. Same with Michigan and Florida. Had Obama been the winner of those states he would want those delegates who wouldn't? I do not like the idea of super delegates but they have had a role they kneew they might play..... so play it and for futur refrence try to change it if you do not like it. (the super delegates)
The voice of the people should be heard and there is time to change things. Michigan and Florida did not become an issue until one candidate against the agreement of the party, campaigned there anyway. The consistant approach is to allow everyone's votes to count. That means that, because many Superdelegates do not have a constituency, the Superdelegates should be cast for the candidate at the end of the day has the most pledged delegates.
With regard to Michigan and FLorida, their votes should count. However, they are the ones who moved their primaries up in violation of the rules. There should be a consequence. That consequence should be that both Obama and Clinton's names should appear on the ballot and both should be allowed to campaign,and they either hold a new primary or caucus. Obama shoud not be penalized for following the rules. If Clinton truly won these states as handily as they and TrueBlue claim, they should have no problem with a FAIR election.
Power to the PEOPLE, not SUPERPEOPLE.
I personally don't see the need for super delegates in this election. We do not have polarizing candidates. If the super delegate vote negates the will of the people, it will be very discouraging for voters in the primary. Why vote if my vote means nothing?
Let the people speak and let their choice stand. Our democracy is eroded enough. It's time for change. Yes, we can!
The idea of party bosses and hacks determining the nominee came to a head at the 68 convention, so some rules were changed to allow for primaries and caucuses have more of a role in the selection process. That changed again in 1980 and super delegates were introduced to the process.
The fact is Obama supporters don't like the superdelegate rules and Hillary supporters don't like the Florida/Michigan rules.
Either way, somebody wants the rules changed in the middle of the game. Why?