The People's Will.

[Ravy]

Elections are supposed to determine the will of the people. That is a foundation of democracy.

Superdelegates are saying that they do not want their vote to overturn the people's will.


But how do we measure the people's will?

Bush became president in 2000 by a vote of the electoral college. Gore won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Which measurement, the electoral college or the popular vote, best reflected the people's will?


Under the DNC rules, delegates are pledged by a proportional formula. With the current totals, Obama has about a 150 delegate lead or so, just counting pledged delegates. Are pledged delegates reflective of the people's will?

Setting up an electoral college map (remember, it is also supposed to reflect the people's will) and assigning states won to Obama and Clinton shows that Clinton would only need to win one of the remaining primaries/caucuses to reach over half the Electoral College votes. I am not suggesting this or supporting this. I am simply saying that if the DNC had used the same measurement of the people's will that we do to choose our president, the current race would be all but over with Clinton winning handily.

Should we go by popular vote? This is probably more accurate of the people's will, but it has problems, too... if put on a national scale. Smaller states and rural areas would probably never see a candidate if we went by popular vote.

We have to set a standard at the outset of each election. And in this Democratic Primary election, it is the DNC's measurement that we will pretend is accurate in reflecting the people's will. But remember, the superdelegates are also part of the same game, and they are not bound by any arcane formulas. They might choose to measure the people's will by the national totals (pledged delegates or popular vote), or they may prefer to measure the people's will by the totals in their congressonal district or state. No matter which way they vote in this election, they will be able to justify their vote as reflecting the people's will, just by a different standard than others may apply to come to the opposite conclusion.

We cannot say that elections measure the will of the people. They may. They may not. What we can say is that one candidate played the game-du-jour better than the other one.

That's politics.

[jackson_dem]

1. By adding up the people's vote and having the sd's choose the candidate who won the most votes

[Johnny__Motown]

4. Representative Democracy... someone called jackson__dem should comprehend this

We have a system where delegates are chosen instead of using the popular vote. There are reasons for that. (go look them up if you must)

This is our system, deal with it.


This race is all about delegates and nobody who understands our system can argue that the popular vote should be the deciding factor for anything. (although SD can vote any way they want to)

[jackson_dem]

10. Are you a Democrat? Our party exists because the popular will was overturned by representatives

Obamanation can't be hypocritical and demand the sd's be bound to the pledged delegate count, something that is not in the rules, based on posing as democratic champions and then claim the popular will as expressed through the votes of the people should be ignored by superdelegates now that it is possible Obama may lose the popular vote.

[anigbrowl]

16. How many Superdelegates did Clinton have before the voting even started?

She went into the race with a lead of something close to 100 SUPERdelegates. Before a single person had voted.

[jackson_dem]

18. If she loses the popular vote they should vote for Obama and vice versa if O loses the people's vote

[Ravy]

5. Nationally or in their constituency?

Let's say that Clinton leads the popular vote at the end by 300K votes. But in the district that elects this particular congressman, Obama won the popular vote by a wide margin. Which people's will should he use?

My point is, that in an election this close, sds will be able to find several different ways to justify their vote as the "people's will" no matter who they choose to vote for.

[jackson_dem]

11. They should go with the national vote

It was a travesty when the (national) will of the people was overturned, which led to the birth of our party. It would be equally as bad in 2008.

[Ravy]

15. I honestly think that if I was a SD, that is what I would do.

Unless it was too insignificant to matter, then I might drop it down to my constituency's popular vote.

However, right now, honestly, if I could use my vote to get them on the same ticket somehow, I would.

[DJ13]

2. Currently Obama leads in both delegates and total votes

Problem solved.

[Ravy]

6. But there are other measures.

State votes from the state the sd resides in. Their congressional district votes. Perhaps even applying the Electoral college map.

Problem not solved anymore.

[anigbrowl]

19. Too bad. The time to debate this was last year.

Both candidates (along with many others) went into the race knowing what the system was and how it worked. Clinton especially has seen first hand twice before. Did she ever propose reforming it or restructuring from 1996 until now?

[Ravy]

21. I am not proposing reforming how pledged delegates are awarded.

Superdelegates can vote however they please, for the good of the party. That is in the rules, too. And sorry, the time to debate *that* was last year as well.

[canadian_is_cold]

3. Obama is also leading in the popular vote...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[Ravy]

7. Maybe not leading in the popular vote that is the sd's constituency.

For instance, Barbara Boxer says she will vote for whoever won the popular vote in California. Those are the people who elect her.

Many superdelegates are members of congress. Since they are all democrats, their constituents tend to be democratic as well. Hillary does better in the popular vote when you just count democrats. And she is winning almost all of the big states which have the most superdelegates.

I am not saying which way they should, nor am I predicting which way the will vote.

I am just making the point that there are a lot of ways to measure the people's "will".

[jackson_dem]

13. Which means nothing. Let's see who is leading when it is over on June 7

Leading now means nothing.

Even now, though, he trails in the popular vote if Florida and Michigan are counted by the way. Are sd's to ignore FL and MI?

[FlyingSquirrel]

8. Obama's magic number is 47%

If he can gain that many of the remaining delegates, he is "Michigan-proof" and "Florida-proof". He will be in the lead in pledged delegates no matter what happens with those two states. And since he has been getting 53% of the delegates so far, that shouldn't be too hard.

Oh, and if he gets 47% of the remaining delegates, his grand total will be 1879 including the 203 superdelegates that have already committed to him. Assuming no more commit between now and June.

That leaves 147 more of the 350 uncommitted superdelegates to give him the nomination - just 42% of them - to clinch the nomination.

Now tell me again why this is not a virtual lock. Is he somehow not going to carry 47% of the remaining delegates in 12 states/provinces when he has taken 53% so far? Are 59% of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates crazy enough to overturn the popular vote?

Methinks not

[Ravy]

12. You said "overturning the popular vote". What if Hillary leads that?

That is very possible. Then where do your numbers go???

This bait and switch of "pledged delegate lead" and "popular vote" is disturbing to me.

If Obama is the numerical lock, then what are the superdelegates waiting for? Do you want me to believe the party officials and elders are enjoying the curent back and forth??? They could end it now by committing (and they may).

Personally, I am thinking many are waiting for them to commit to a unity ticket, regardless of Obama's protestations. I think they would probably prefer Obama/Clinton, but I think they are very hesitant to piss off all of the Clinton camp by leaving her off the ticket.

[FlyingSquirrel]

17. Ok fine, I'll just say "pledged delegate lead" since that's what I meant anyway.

Popular vote is a red herring. The rules have been set up. You can't change them in the middle of the game any more than you can change our electoral college mid-election. Maybe it should just be popular vote in the primary process and to hell with delegates. Maybe it should just be popular vote in the GE and to hell with electors. But for now the system is the system and he will win within this system. The only way for Hillary to win this now is litigation, litigation, litigation and division, division, division. The country's had enough of that and it will send her down in FLAMES in the GE if she actually wins the nomination this way.

It is time for this to end.

[Ravy]

20. I really don't think many of them will use "pledged delegate lead" .

and that is what almost everyone is basing their numerical analysis on.

That is the one statistic that makes their role irrelevant.

[Riley133]

9. Also, haven't more registered Dems voted for HRC? Cause that's another thing to consider....

If only registered Dems' votes counted, it'd be Hillary leading. I believe that is something else to consider when you're looking at the will of the party in choosing your candidate leading up to the election. They will be more likely to follow through in November.

[Ravy]

14. Yes. Good point. I am convinced that every SD will be able to say they are

voting for the people's will, no matter which way they vote.