Should the Democrats' superdelegates accede to the majority of Democratic primary voters?
Both Clinton and Obama say so--only Clinton says it should be everyone who voted, while Obama says it should only be voters whose votes were accepted by the Democratic Party's rulegivers.
By some amazing coincidence, each would win if we counted the votes the way each of their quest for impartial justice would dictate.
But there's a problem. Some states nominated by caucus, others by conventional voting, others by some arcane combination. Some primaries were limited to registered Democrats, others were open.
So it's not a level playing field, and just what the majority is...is open to considerable question. And the two candidates' statements are too self-serving to count for much.
And remember, the next president won't be determined by the popular vote. It will be determined by a winner take all system (in most states) funnelled through the electoral college, which means that in most states even if 49.9% of the voters voted Democrat their votes would count for exactly nothing, as long as the Republican got 50.1%--and vice versa.
Here's how I'd figure out how to vote if I were a superdelegate:
1. If I were a legislator, I'd see how my district voted. That wouldn't be determinative, but at least if I went against my district's vote I'd know I had some serious explaining to do.
2. I wouldn't take into account the votes in all states that will for sure vote for one party regardless--those overwhelmingly Red and Blue states. If all 400 Democrats in Utah picked Obama, so what? Utah's electors will all go for McCain. Period.
3. Only consider the votes in the s0-called battleground states that could go either way. If either candidate turns out to have a strong advantage after all the primaries are over, I'd vote for that one.
4. I wouldn't take into account the sulky vote--those who say they'd never vote for Clinton or Obama if they couldn't get Obama or Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama say so--only Clinton says it should be everyone who voted, while Obama says it should only be voters whose votes were accepted by the Democratic Party's rulegivers.
By some amazing coincidence, each would win if we counted the votes the way each of their quest for impartial justice would dictate.
But there's a problem. Some states nominated by caucus, others by conventional voting, others by some arcane combination. Some primaries were limited to registered Democrats, others were open.
So it's not a level playing field, and just what the majority is...is open to considerable question. And the two candidates' statements are too self-serving to count for much.
And remember, the next president won't be determined by the popular vote. It will be determined by a winner take all system (in most states) funnelled through the electoral college, which means that in most states even if 49.9% of the voters voted Democrat their votes would count for exactly nothing, as long as the Republican got 50.1%--and vice versa.
Here's how I'd figure out how to vote if I were a superdelegate:
1. If I were a legislator, I'd see how my district voted. That wouldn't be determinative, but at least if I went against my district's vote I'd know I had some serious explaining to do.
2. I wouldn't take into account the votes in all states that will for sure vote for one party regardless--those overwhelmingly Red and Blue states. If all 400 Democrats in Utah picked Obama, so what? Utah's electors will all go for McCain. Period.
3. Only consider the votes in the s0-called battleground states that could go either way. If either candidate turns out to have a strong advantage after all the primaries are over, I'd vote for that one.
4. I wouldn't take into account the sulky vote--those who say they'd never vote for Clinton or Obama if they couldn't get Obama or Clinton.
No comments:
Post a Comment