[Rhodes22-list] Could a Dem Answer this For Me?

[David Bradley]

Aren't there multiple rounds of voting if a deadlock?  I've never
really paid that much attention to a convention when I was a member of
either party. This year's is going to be worth watching.

Dave

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
> That's pretty much my understanding. Yet, now they're being "pressured"
> to commit their votes now, and in accordance with the popular vote.
>
> Sort of defeats the whole purpose for which they were created, right?
>
> David Bradley wrote:
> > Herb, I was prompted by your question to read a bit about the super
> > delegates. Seems the concept was in response to the conventions where
> > Humphrey and Carter picked up the nominations after close votes.  They
> > wanted to get grass roots politics to play a bigger role in the party
> > leadership.  Presumably, after they were to vote in accordance with
> > the popular vote from their constituency, if there were a deadlock,
> > they would then be expected to act like party leaders.
> >
> > They may have to fulfill their roles in Denver.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
> >
> >> How would they be useful, if they were just supposed to vote the way the
> >> popular vote goes?
> >>
> >> Actually, if the superdelegates stay out of the race until the primary
> >> this time around, there would be that "stalemate", neither side would
> >> have enough votes for the win. It's because the "might" vote the way
> >> they want instead of along the lines of the popular vote that the issue
> >> is coming up at all.
> >>
> >>
> >> David Bradley wrote:
> >>
> >>> No idea what the stated purpose is of super delegates, but would
> >>> imagine they would be useful in a stalemate situation at the national
> >>> convention.
> >>>
> >>> Just learned the caucus process this year in Washington state - pretty
> >>> interesting to see grass roots politics roll up to the legilative
> >>> district level (I was a Clinton delegate in round 2).  Amazing how
> >>> consistent the vote was from our neighborhood to the district in the
> >>> context of overall state results.  Amazing also to see every nutcase
> >>> show up to try to inject something into the platform (plenty of
> >>> nutcases in both parties).
> >>>
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> In a recent article, Dick Morris wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> "The Democratic superdelegates aren't about to risk a massive and
> >>>> sanguinary civil war by taking the nomination away from the candidate
> >>>> who won more elected delegates. If they ever tried it, we'd see a repeat
> >>>> of the demonstrations that smashed the 1968 Chicago convention and
> >>>> ruined Hubert Humphrey's chances of victory"
> >>>>
> >>>> That seems to be the prevailing attitude among Democrats, that the
> >>>> "superdelegates" should vote the way their popular vote goes. These
> >>>> superdelegates are NOT the same as the electoral college
> >>>> representatives, they are independent delegates.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, my question to the Dems out there, if they are should only vote the
> >>>> way the popular vote went, what's their purpose?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>



-- 
David Bradley
+1.206.234.3977
dwbrad at gmail.com