The Will of the People

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not a very significant point, I'm afraid, but. . . .

I'm getting so tired of hearing both Obama and Clinton supporters talking about the "will of the people" as if all the people had one will.

It makes as much sense as referring to the "height of the people" or "the hair color of the people" or "the Social Security Number of the people".

When they talk about the superdelegates somehow being a part of democratic process even though their single votes are worth the equivalent of thousands of other votes and say that they will somehow reflect "the will of the people," I always want to ask "the will of which people?"

Isn't that the real question?

[godofpie]

Not a very significant point, I'm afraid, but. . . .

I'm getting so tired of hearing both Obama and Clinton supporters talking about the "will of the people" as if all the people had one will.

It makes as much sense as referring to the "height of the people" or "the hair color of the people" or "the Social Security Number of the people".

When they talk about the superdelegates somehow being a part of democratic process even though their single votes are worth the equivalent of thousands of other votes and say that they will somehow reflect "the will of the people," I always want to ask "the will of which people?"

Isn't that the real question?
With an electoral college, 2 party system, and voting laws that are designed to exclude as many as possible, it is more relevant to say the will of the elite. The people are seldom heard.

[Brainster]

What makes me laugh is that the superdelegates were intended (http://www.republic-news.org/archive/154-repub/154_kevin_potvin_9-11.htm) to thwart the will of the people, as discussed in a pretty good article in today's New York Times.

The party establishment recoiled a decade later after Mr. Carter’s crushing defeat by Mr. Reagan, instituting a counterreform — a new class of freelance superdelegates. These party leaders and elected officials were the decisive votes that denied the 1984 nomination to Senator Gary Hart of Colorado, a reform candidate trying to unseat the establishment man, Senator Walter Mondale.

And in a less convincing OpEd here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021401595_pf.html):

After Carter's defeat four years later, the Democrats worried that they had produced a process too favorable to weak "outsider" candidates. They then tried to restore some power to the party's operatives by establishing unpledged "superdelegates," including governors, members of Congress and former presidents -- a modest check that did little to gut the reforms.

[corplinx]

God forbid the people who paid their dues to the party and are there through thick and thin have a say against a bunch of people who registered just to vote in the primary.

[godofpie]

God forbid the people who paid their dues to the party and are there through thick and thin have a say against a bunch of people who registered just to vote in the primary.
Triumph, I love your work but are you saying that the few should decide for the majority? Not every state has open primaries. Is that what you are referring to?

[JoeTheJuggler]

God forbid the people who paid their dues to the party and are there through thick and thin have a say against a bunch of people who registered just to vote in the primary.
You don't think everyone who has paid his or her dues to the party and been there through thick and thin are superdelegates, do you?

Even so, if their job (or reward) is to "have a say against a bunch of people" then they shouldn't continue to talk about reflecting "the will of the people". Right?

As if "reflecting the will of the people" had some real meaning other than agreeing among themselves who the nominee will be.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Seriously, there is no "will of the people". My will is different than your will, and that's why we vote.

If the "will of the people" is already known by the superdelegates, why even pretend to have primaries?

[ZenFountain]

God forbid the people who paid their dues to the party and are there through thick and thin have a say against a bunch of people who registered just to vote in the primary.

There's a lot more than 500 or so Democrats who "paid their dues to the party and are there through thick and thin". 500 superdelegates is a rough guess on how many party members get the honor minus entitled superdelegates (congressmen, governors, DNC members).

In response to the OP I believe too much emphasis is being put on the superdelegates. If one candidate opens an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, the superdelegates will come running to that candidate and the other will capitulate in days. Both candidates realize there is an invisible line of demarcation somewhere in delegate tallies that will trigger a shift in superdelegates and DNC members wanting to get on with the business of campaigning against McCain.

[Thorn]

I kinda agree. Will of the people sounds more like mob rule than civil progression.

[steverino]

My parents "paid their dues" through thick and thin with the Democratic party. They were raised during the Depression, and under four terms of FDR. He fought in WWII to keep America free, and my mother patiently awaited his return, not knowing if he would, and then raised five of us. They voted for Truman, Stevenson, Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore & Kerry.

Although not super-delegates, they are, in my book, super-voters, and deserve the same voting power as anyone, and everyone else...
...I say this as a non-Democrat.

[JoeTheJuggler]

In response to the OP I believe too much emphasis is being put on the superdelegates. If one candidate opens an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, the superdelegates will come running to that candidate and the other will capitulate in days. Both candidates realize there is an invisible line of demarcation somewhere in delegate tallies that will trigger a shift in superdelegates and DNC members wanting to get on with the business of campaigning against McCain.
Then why bother with superdelegates?

If they're there to take care of close voting, then admit it. In the event of a statistical tie, or a candidate ahead who the party leaders don't like, then their job is to "fix" the primary process. Their job is in no way to reflect the "will of the people" (which I still say is a meaningless expression).

The way I learned it, it should be one person one vote. My vote should count the same as any other, no matter how much party loyalty and service someone has given in the past. A superdelegate is essentially someone who has thousands or tens of thousands of votes to my one.

If the only thing they can do is choose the candidate in the lead, what's the point? If they can change the outcome, then let them admit that that's their raison d'etre.

[dudalb]

I really think some party leaders in both parties envy the Party leaders in the UK and Most European countries,where,essentially, the Party Leadership pretty much calls the shots on candidates.

[dudalb]

Vox Populi,Vox Humbug.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I really think some party leaders in both parties envy the Party leaders in the UK and Most European countries,where,essentially, the Party Leadership pretty much calls the shots on candidates.

I probably wouldn't have too much trouble with that if we had 6 or 8 or 12 viable national parties.