Summary: If results continue to be uncertain in the Democratic primary, superdelegates will play an integral role in deciding the outcome of the nomination. These individuals are party leaders and elected officials with the power to pledge support at the national convention irrespective to the results of the primaries and caucuses. CNN invited two superdelegates to discuss the implications of their decisions if a majority (winner) is not decided by the pledged delegates awarded to the primary and caucus winners.
Focus Question: As posed on the CNN video, if superdelegates play a role in deciding the outcomes of the Democratic nomination, should they: a) vote according to the results of their state; b) vote according to national primary/caucus election results; or c) vote on their own accord? (incorporate the arguments of the two superdelegates in your support or critique of a position).
Note: To access the video, go to the below website and look for the superdelegate debate under the series of most recent videos; it is not the video immediately linked to the website.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/11/monday.analysis/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
3 responses so far ↓
08roconnor // February 16, 2008 at 7:31 pm |
I believe that super delegates should vote for who won their individual states. By having delegates who can vote any way they wish no matter what the will of the American people is. Super delegates if anything reduces democracy in America, making a place not run by the people but by party politics
Colleen H // February 18, 2008 at 8:05 pm |
I agree with Rob that the super delegates should vote for the more popular candidate in his/her state. These are the people the delegate has been selected to represent and by voting without these people’s interests at heart, the delegate would not be properly doing this job. From seeing the two super delegates talk, I think it is obvious that they do not wish to have the votes come down to their decisions, which I am happy about. I think that all people would rather have their individual votes heard than have the choice come down to such a select few. I agree with Mr. Spencer and Ms. Larson that this system may not be the best idea and while I’m not sure it is “outdated” (I don’t ever think it was a great idea), I do also agree that this currently is an unprecendented situation that each delegate really has to chose their own path for. I am glad to hear Ms. Larson say that she will be listening to the voices of the people instead of her own opinion to make her choice.
NickM // February 18, 2008 at 9:58 pm |
A lot of emotion has been flying across the country over this issue and I believe there are valid points for both sides. I can see how some would want superdelegates to vote alongside the pledged delegates from their district. Although this would most likely reduce the role of superdelegates, making them “special guests” to the convention. I don’t believe the Democratic Party wants to do this.
Ultimately, I think that superdelegates should not be “in the mix” of this primary election process at all. Agreeing with the man with the lisp, it make me uncomfortable knowing that superdelegates have a chance to decide the nominee. It just doesn’t seem very democratic to let party elites have a vote that could possibly count for more than the voting public. I don’t believe that the Democratic Party would want to look like they’re alright with this either.
No matter what the outcome of this primary, I believe that the Democratic Party has no choice but to rethink the powers of superdelegates.