What exactly is the 'will of the voters'?

[BooScout]

We have heard so many calls for the superdelegates to vote the 'will of the voters' that we've lost count of how many times the mantra has been invoked.

Exactly what is the 'will of the voters'? Is it the will of the voters in the state the superdelegate happens to live in? Is it nationwide? If it is nationwide, is it proportionate like the Democratic Primary process? At what time should these superdelegates cast their vote? Right now the momentum seems to be swinging for Clinton as Obama's glossy exterior seems to be dulling somewhat. Should they wait until the bitter end and vote, should they wait until they are threatened to vote, or should they vote whenever they please? Who decides these things and who makes up the rules? Such a corundum.

Right now I see many polls saying Clinton would beat McCain in the GE and Obama won't. Is it the role of the superdelegates to do their best to insure a Democratic victory come November or should they turn a blind eye to the unelectability of one candidate and vote the way they are 'told' to vote?


What about Florida and Michigan? How do we deal with that red hot issue regarding the superdelegates? Will we ever decide that issue?

What about the superdelegates that have endorsed one candidate and then later on switched to another because of threats from special interest groups? What about those that have been tempted by carrots offered by various candidates? What about their own conscience and judgment?

[FrenchieCat]

1. You see polls that are occuring while Hillary is being loved by the media

and left un-attacked by both Obama and Mccain.

In the meantime, you see McCain just kind of drifting through.

Then you see Obama being attacked by Hillary, Bill, Their 527s, McCain, the media and the GOP and the RW noise machine.

So take your polls and shove them, cause they mean diddly squat.

You are kind of silly, aren't you.

Or we are just stupid and you are just smart, or something? :sarcasm:

[BooScout]

5. "loved by the media and un-attacked by both Obama and McCain"?

And you call me silly??? You and I obviously live on different planets. I live on earth....where are you?

and "Or we are just stupid and you are just smart, or something?"

If you say so. That would explain a lot.
:eyes:

[susankh4]

2. The will of the voters is to have more than two parties.

And if this primary season hasn't made that clear... we'll never get it.

[Enrique]

3. it's something unattainable perfectly

and it's also something that isn't the only factor in the party's method of choosing the nominee.

Your questions are very good and very complicated. I think Howard Dean understands how important it is to follow the rules as they exist now. He conceded to Tim Russert that there are some rules he might not like and might change, but that it's crucial to follow them now, so that the loser doesn't think he/she was cheated.

[Jawja]

4. "will of the voters..."

Uh, actual pledged delegate count under the rules of the system? :shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

6. It would be a disaster if one candidate showed up

with more delegates selected through primaries and caucuses by the voters and then the other candidate, the one with fewer delegats selected through primaries and caucuses by the voters, was nominated by claiming enough of the superdelegates to overturn the primary results. That is generally what is meant here by 'the will of the voters'. If Clinton shows up in Denver with mjore pledged delegates, she ought to be the nominee. If Obama shows up with more pledged delegates, he ought to be the nominee.

[cali]

7. good question. I get really sick of the will of the voters stuff.

the role of the SD is to vote for who they think would be the best candidate in the fall. In reality, they are unlikely to turn over a pledged delegate lead of 100+. There's no conumdrum, however. SDs are free to vote whenever they wish for whoever they wish, based on any criteria they want. People should just accept those facts.