What about the electoral “weight”? Not a factor at all for you?
That’s a factor for me, but I’m not sure how a vote that doesn’t include Republicans helps me understand how the election will go in November, nor do I think that current polls will even be much help in that regard. I do think that Clinton’s baggage will make it very difficult for her to win over uncommitted Republicans, whereas Obama lacks any such baggage.
Daniel
Agreed, definitely not a conclusive indication, but neither is the popular vote. My point is that a reasonable person could cast a superdelegate vote for Hillary based on the circumstance I described and, with a straight face, say that he believed it the best indicator of the “will of the people” as it will actually work in the election.
Just a reaction to what seems to be a firmly held position (that I’m just trying to understand), that if Obama has an edge in delegates and popular vote, no matter how slight, no matter what other factors may be offered, then a superdelegate vote for Hillary would be a travesty. Again, no dog in this fight, but it doesn’t seem that way to me. But maybe I’m missing something.
I’m not sure this is the case. I certainly agree that Hillary has a great deal of baggage that would make it hard for some people in that group to vote for her. My mother is one of those people, actually. (Though she’s hoping for an Obama candidacy.) But, by the same token, I think that there are sufficient aspects in Obama’s past and background to bother the same group of people.
Just for an example, any kind of liberation theology is not likely to sit well with that core group of people, I don’t think. I’m not trying to say that I believe that Obama should have said more about his pastor’s comments, just that I can imagine that his pastor’s comments will continue to be an issue, or perhaps become even more of one, should he get the nod for the Democratic ticket.
Do you mean electability?
If that is what you mean, yes, it does matter. However, any discussions should factor in the “electability” factor minus “whatever measure can be made of demonstrated Dem votes, some of whom may be turned off by ignoring the ‘will of the people’”.
Yeah. And if not, do you at least see it as a logical position, one someone could use to cast a superdelegate vote for Hillary without it being a violation of some inviolable democratic principle?
(If you’re responding to me and taking into account I’m distracted by a patron next to me at a public computer)
It may not be an inviolable democratic principle (obviously) but the basic nominating process itself says we pick a nominee through the results of the primaries and caucuses in every participating state and terrritory.
Given that we may go beyond that, and it may not be until the convention that that nominee is decided and the superdelegates’ independent choices will be very important then, my unsophisticated conjecture is that it should go something like: (i) total delegates, (ii) popular vote, (iii) electability, then any deeper discussion(s) should parse (iv) electability factor minus possible loss of disillusioned dem voters.
Again, the will of the people is not the only overriding criteria, but, to me, breaking it down to the level of looking at which individual states with large numbers of delegates did each candidate win, disregards and violates the principles and basic process I’ve outlined above.
It goes without saying none of us know what factors would get weighed in any backroom discussions, including flat out quid pro quo deals.
Doesn’t it go right to “electability”? Does the narrowness of the win in delegates or popular vote make “electability” more of a factor? And, not to harp on it (and your response was helpful), but do you see positions other than yours, such as the one I suggest, as reasonable, even if it’s not your perspective?
By the way, ask the guy next to you what he thinks. 
The thing is, I’m a pretty big proponent of straight-up democracy (that is, as long as you fools refuse to recognize me as supreme leader). I know the federalist papers and all their reasoning, but I disagree with the ideas therein. In the Information Age, I prefer democracy to be as direct as it can be. Superdelegates are about two or three steps removed from direct democracy, and so I disapprove of them. (I prefer primaries to caucuses, as I prefer all systems that make participation easier).
I really don’t understand how a superdelegate who casts a vote contrary to the popular vote would make an argument that this reflects the will of the people. They may make a case for philosopher-king benefits, but I don’t see how they can make a case that it’s democratic. And I really, really doubt they can make a case that would convince a substantial minority, let alone a majority, of Democratic voters.
Daniel
I’m sorry, I didn’t answer that. Your position is absolutely reasonable, given that any committee discussions has to weigh many things in order to seek the greatest chance for victory for the chosen candidate. It’s just that my position speaks to my individual sense of fairness and practicality; I would apply it to either candidate as much as could be though, like I said.
I said it was a public library.
To LHOD: Well, the “will of the people” can be defined in a number of reasonable ways. A simple plurality (as I’m sure you know) is not the only way of electing an official, and some think it’s one of the worst ways. Recognizing and assigning weights to regional interests–in the way the Electoral College does–is one way of defining the collective national will. The obvious point being, that’s how the general election will be decided.
So, my real point (which I’m sure is obvious by now) is not to try to convince people that their positions are wrong or illogical. Yours certainly isn’t, and personal axioms defy such arguments anyway. I’m just asking if there’s room for another perspective, if a superdelegate vote supported by the logic I suggest is at least reasonable, even if it’s not consistent with your worldview. Much of what I’ve read in these threads suggest that there are people who would loudly disagree with such a notion–that this is at all reasonable–and I’m trying to understand why.
Thanks. Yours is a perfectly reasonable position, ISTM.
Well, shoosh him then!
If it’s within 100 delegates (though I think closer would be better) and the popular vote is within the aforementioned whisker, then I don’t really have a “will of the voter being subverted” issue with the superdelegates breaking whichever way they choose. I’d be disappointed, but it wouldn’t feel like Hillar had “stolen” the nomination.
I will qualify that by stating that that is just my humble opinion. The supers are in a really rough spot this election. The race is close and a lot of potentially disenfranchised voters are watching them like millions of ill tempered hawks. To avoid any crying of foul, they had better be sure that the race is within a hair’s breadth on either side.
To be sure noone misinterprets that, it isn’t a threat but an observation. There’s hard feelings already between the two sides on this board, and that’s likely a fair sampling of the way the country feels as well.
Stratocaster, I think LHOD has put it more directly and succinctly than I did by alluding to the fact that what you propose simply adds one more layer and another format that prevents would prevent direct voting by the people.
I’m not a fan of the superdelegates or the electoral college, but basic form of the current primary system at least provide one truer form of direct voting. Your suggestion, combined with the EC and superdelegate system would just seem to add another layer to the process, and get us further away from at least one chance for the candidate to be selected as a direct result of the will of the people.
I think the electoral college is an outdated institution that should be abolished, so that’s not convincing :). I don’t claim that superdelegates who make some sort of EC-like calculation are unreasonable, but I strongly disagree that such a calculation should be made. And I think that the EC is only accepted today because it’s been around so long; adding a new such calculation to the political landscape would, I predict, not go over well at all.
Daniel
If I may, I think part of the problem is that there has been a lot of talk over the past eight years about the evils of the Electoral College system, and how it allegedly subverted the popular vote. Most of which seems to be coming from the Democratic party, or their supporters. So, having the party that is most associated with that charge now in a position where the superdelegates are likely to be the ones who will choose the party’s next presidential candidate strikes a lot of people as jarring, at the very least.
But I offer it only in an election where the delegate count and popular vote is as close as it may well be in this election. This one is definitely the aberration. Most are decided by February or March, and the count is such that there’s no need to consider any other factor. But not this time. The “mandate” people refer to that Obama is receiving seems damn close to me.
There’s nothing sacred, ISTM, about a 1 or 2% advantage in the popular vote (just to pick a number) if there are other contradictory factors that could well decide the election–for example, Clinton winning all the big states, the ones that will carry that electoral weight in the general election, the one that assigns the real prize. Again, I’m reacting to the notion that any superdelegate vote for Hillary in opposition to a delegate and popular vote advantage for Obama, must be considered an outrage. Not if the margin is narrow, not if Hillary’s states won would actually provide a greater EC advantage (not that anyone can count on anything conclusively).
OK. I’m actually a fan of the EC, but reasonable people like us can disagree.
Seems like a reasonable position. Where are all the strident voices of disagreement I expected? 
Adding to it is that they were mostly unknown until this year.