Superdelegates , Florida, and Michigan

I read a lot of debate and arguments going on about the role of superdelegates and whether or not Florida or Michigan should be allowed to seat their delegates. I must say one argument that is being applied selectively is in favor of Obama. Obama supporters, indeed obama himself, and many liberal blogs says superdelegates should not decide who will be the nominee and furthermore they argue that Florida and Michigan delegates should remain unseated.

I would like to point out here that this reeks of selective application of the rules to one’s political advantage. The rules were all agreed to apriori as everyone likes to point out and I didn’t hear any calls for superdelegates votes to be tied to their constituent’s majority votes before the nomination contest was close. So, if you want to now take back the role of superdelegates and argue that they not have their choice of votes anymore then that smacks in the face of adhering to the rules argument, that was setup at the outset.

Another sub-argument about this issue is that superdelegates are undemocratic and it subverts the will of the people. I am sure the Floridians (1.6 million who voted in spite of the fact that NONE of the Democratic candidates “campaigned” in FL) and Michiganians (565,913 who voted where only the uncommitted supporters campaigned vigorously) will have an ear-full for you to consider on voter disenfranchment.

Only Hillary was on the ballot in MI. This should automatically disqualify the existing primary results without any further discussion.

Perhaps we should hold new primaries or caucuses for Michigan and Florida. But the existing results shouldn’t be counted.

But the fact is that the Democratic Party spelled out the rules — if you move your primary up before a certain date, you lose your delegates. Some are arguing MI/FL were forced into this position by their Republican legislatures.. but this is immaterial. If no one abides by the rules, there are no rules.

I think superdelegates should vote for whoever they feel like. But many of them should realize there may be primary election consequences if they throw the nomination against the will of their constituents. No one is advocating a change in the rules — just reminding people that their actions have consequences.

The superdelegate thing I’m more or less fine with. In any governmental position I trust that the elected or appointed officials vote in a manner which they think will best benefit the country. (Keep in mind I’m ignoring the willful pandering, bribes, and courting that both candidates engage in.) Government officials are allowed a certain amount of discretion to do their job. We have a republic for a reason, because true democracy is completely unwieldy. Oversight is nice too, but we can’t monitor everything.

As far as seating candidates from Florida and Michigan, I’m against it. Last year, Hillary wasn’t against the sanctions placed on the two states when the DNC penalized them for having primaries earlier than they were scheduled. It’s only when it would benefit her that she’s for it. Both Obama and Edwards pulled their names from the ballet in Michigan. How is it a fair representation of the voters’ will when there is only one real name on their? In Florida, even though their names were left on the ballot, neither candidate (even Hillary) really strongly campaigned there.

The whole deal seems real shady to me. Stick with the rules that were laid out from the start or schedule another election as the DNC has suggested. Frankly I’m sorry for the people of Florida and Michigan that their election officials broke the rules and aren’t willing to reconcile conditions to fix their mistake.

Both states have rejected reholding the election due to costs. Perhaps this is a lesson in patience as ironically both Florida and Michigan would be very decisive in the delegate process had they waited till their scheduled March time to vote.

Of course, if we learned anything from the 2000 election, Floridaians probably shouldn’t be allowed to set up their own election process in the first place.

I agree with both comments above. Fl and MI can’t stand since they had the carpet pulled from under them in the first place. I think they should revote especially as they are very coveted swing states. We ignore them at our own peril as a party.

By that same token, however, I think supers are fair game.

What I disagree with is the villianizing of Hillary campaign for aggressively pursuing Supers and the position that (since she has the lead at the moment in supers) that somehow she is winning by “stealing” the election.

The nomination system, including superdelegates, was agreed upon before the start of the election. Thus, I have no qualms with letting them vote as they see fit.

I only hope that the outcome of the convention aligns with the popular vote total (or at least the state-by state breakdown). If not, there are going to be some very unhappy people in the party, and it could really hurt whoever the nominee is.

After the convention, everyone needs to come together and start working for the common cause, which is getting a Democrat elected to the White House. If lingering ill will and infighting cause this process to be retarded, then the Dems may find a way to screw up the most favorable election they’ve had in decades.