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

[Herb Parsons]

Yes, but it's been a LOOOOONG time since a race wasn't decided before 
the convention.

David Bradley wrote:
> 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
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>