I was having a long chat with Mrs.Phlosphr last night over dinner, we were looking at the current state of affairs in the democratic battle for the nomination and were in good conscious looking at the role the superdelegates play in this election. And we came up with one fundamental philosophical question: What are the superdelegates Obligated to do in this election?
Is it:
(1) Make sure a democratic nominee will win in November at all costs?
(a) Pick the candidate most likely to succeed in that endeavor?
(2) Choose the candidate they alone feel will beat McCain?
(3) Vote with the will of the people even if they feel something personally different?
(4) Converse among themselves to back the candidate they feel will win in November - regardless of what their voting constituents have shown in the primaries?
Our final take - Superdelegates need to ensure to the best of their ability that a united democratic front will beat the republicans in November.
I think each superdelegate is entitled to make his own decision on what factors should guide their vote. If they were specifically obligated to vote on one of those four or five factors, it should be in the rules of the Democratic Party to do so. Since, so far as I know, the Democratic Party doesn’t direct superdelegates to cast their vote based on defined criteria, the superdelegates are free to vote how they think is best.
Personally, my hope would be that superdelegates choose Obama, because it appears he will have the most legitimacy in terms of pledged delegates, popular vote, chance of beating McCain, and not having the baggage of Hillary Clinton.
Maybe you should define “obligated.” Legally, I suppose the superdelegates can make their decision using the I Ching, a Ouija board, or D&D dice.
*
Ethically*, it would seem that their job is to pick the candidate with the best chance of winning. In theory, this could involve analyzing the primary results on a state-by-state basis, adjusting for recent trends and developments, etc. As a practical matter, anything but rubber-stamping the popular vote is likely to split the party and hand victory to McCain.
Morally, it could be argued that they’re obligated to vote for the candidate they think would be best, regardless of who might actually win, but I happen to think that would be bad for the country and therefore not morally correct.
ETA: I haven’t used the number system in my response because, frankly, the choices seem poorly defined.
Do what they damn please. They are not “obligated” to do anything. Hell, they ain’t even obligated to vote.
Now, if you want to clarify the OP to mean:
If the SuperDelegates wish to fulfill their purpose in existing, how should they choose for whom to vote?
then we might have a discussion worth having along the lines that are proposed in the OP.
Hey, hey, hey - I specifically didn’t mention the candidates - define the above however you like, either with what I said or your own interpretation of what Obligated means. But please let us know why you feel the way you do…
I think that the superdelegates are obligated to consider what is in the Party’s long term best interests. That goes beyond the Presidential race and even beyond the effect that the nomination result has on the Congressional cycle and into the Party’s long term best health.
Generally that would mean affirming the choice made through the pledged delegate process but one can imagine extraordinary circumstances in which that might not be true. Obviously I do not think that the current cycle has any chance of meeting those extraordinary circumstance. Without question the default position is to affirm the results of the pledged delegate process and supers deciding to go against that requires, in my mind, a sizable burden of proof that such is in the Party’s better long term interests. It comes with a sizable built in cost that is unavoidable.
They are also there to have the appartchiks feel that their voices are heard and spoken to along the way, (including on platform issues) thereby assuring their active involvement in the general election process to follow.
I think a thread entitled “Voting their consciences - whatever that means (Superdelegates)” might spark more of what the OP is after, but it wouldn’t break down neatly along lines. But how often do our consciences fit nicely into proscribed boxes? They just fit better into one vs the other.
If I had to pick what my conscience would indicate - I’d go with 2 & 3. (If they take the nomination from him it will rip the party in half. They’d need a very serious mandate to do as much. Politico explained it better than I can.)
I think #1 is redundant. The choices are to decide by themselves, decide by consensus with other superdelegates or go with the popular vote. The goal is always to have a democrat president in the white house.
I believe they are obligated to go with the popular vote for 2 reasons:
1- After the 2000 elections fiasco, it would be hypocritical for democrats to decide that the popular vote is not paramount. It would greatly damage the party’s credibility.
2- Hillary supporters are more likely to vote for Obama than vice versa. (though the majority in both camps would vote democrat anyways)
Hey, hey, hey - I specifically didn’t mention the candidates - define the above however you like, either with what I said or your own interpretation of what Obligated means. But please let us know why you feel the way you do…