Will using super delegates split the party for years?

[southernleftylady]

what are your thoughts?

[DJ13]

1. Maybe

Super Delegates should be ruled unConstitutional, as it amounts to two votes for the person who is a Super Delegate.

They vote in their home state for a candidate, which leads to a delegate being chosen, then they also ARE a delegate in deciding the nominee.

One man (or woman), one vote should apply.

[Benhurst]

2. I think it could.

The situation we are probably facing.

We have two candidates who have strong bases of support.

Neither will be able to gain a majority of delegates and claim the nomination.

Ironically, both have had more Democrats vote against them than for them.

If the Super delegates throw their support to one, the supporters of the other will be justifiably furious. Even if Obama or Hillary, as the case may be, goes along with giving it to the other, there is no guarantee their supporters will approve.

If Hillary and Barack cut a deal and agree on a joint ticket, they probably could get the Super delegates to go along. But don't forget, many of the Super delegates are running for election and looking out after their own hides.

Would a joint ticket combine their strengths and be strong, or would it combine two negatives and be weak? :shrug:

The convention could turn to a party elder. Al Gore would be the obvious choice. It is possible he could bring the party together. Would it be fair to do so? Well, at least in his case, an argument could be made he won in 2000 and justice was being done. This argument might be easier to make with the Clinton and Obama people than trying to get the respective groups to go along with the anointing of the other.

And perhaps there is someone else out there I haven't though of. John Edwards would seem to have the same negatives going for him as the other two, though. He, too, ran but did not get a majority of votes, not even nearly as high a percentage as Clinton or Obama.

So who knows. Let's hope some kind of accord can be reached which will unite the party and not tear it apart.

[Bullet1987]

3. I think it could...and people who say otherwise aren't getting the point

Even if Obama or Hillary has a 2 delegate lead going into the Convention...and the Superdelegates lean toward the one with the lesser pledged delegates...voters will say a lead is a lead and there will be MAJOR outcry. That's why Dean and likely other Party Establishment folk are probably shitting bricks right now...because they see how messy it can get.

[Benhurst]

4. I agree. And I'll take you one step further. Neither will have earned

the required majority, and both have been rejected, in a sense, by the majority of those who made the effort to vote or attend a caucus.

And in elections, a loss is a loss, whether it be by one vote or thousands. Giving it to one or the other is bound to make the "loser's" supporters furious.

I wish there could have been a provision for a run-off of the top two. Perhaps to do so would be too expensive. :shrug: In any event, one wasn't made, and it is too late now.