Voronwë wrote:Saying that it is wrong is not the same thing as saying that it is against the rules.
Of course it is ... it is saying it is against the rules of ethics. It is an attempt to impose a standard that is not represented by any rule governing the superdelegates. Obviously, I do not claim they are attempting to officially impose this standard with an actual written change of rules. I know they are not.
You may disagree with the contention that it is wrong, but don't say that he is trying to change the rules because that is simply not what is happening.
He is advocating the idea that it is unethical for superdelegates to exercise their judgment contrary to the primary result, even though there is no rule that says it is unethical for superdelegates to exercise their judgment contrary to the primary result. This represents to me, an attempt to change the ethical rules under which the superdelegates operate. Of course I realize that there hasn't been an attempt to codify this idea in the actual written rules.
Lord M wrote:No-one here has said that the Superdelegates must vote for Obama or questioned their right to vote however they like.
I've not been referring to anyone here, when I talk about pressuring the superdelegates. I'm referring to the spin the Obama camp (spokespersons) put out every time the subject comes up in the media. These spokespersons have put out the idea that it is ethically wrong for the superdelegates to act as other than a ratifying body.
The consensus is that Obama is the best candidate, making Clinton the nominee now will damage the party, and that they should vote for Obama.
I don't believe there is consensus that Obama is the best candidate, neither among the electorate, nor among the superdelegates! Those superdelegates who feel that Obama is the best candidate should feel free to vote for Obama. Those superdelegates who feel that Clinton is the best candidate should feel free to vote for Clinton.
If anything, your insistence on maintaining the independence of the Superdelagates ‘because we all agreed to’ and then insisting that the MI and FL delegations be seated is inconsistent.
Yes, it is inconsistent, because I don't see the two 'rules' as similar in kind. The existence of the superdelegates is a deliberate and long-standing feature of the party, the MI and FL fiasco is peculiar to this year and the result of poor decision-making. I guess you could think of it in terms of chopping down a redwood as opposed to digging up a poorly-placed sapling. The first will take more careful consideration, preparation and execution, whereas the second is just a mistake that is easily recognized and dealt with.
Prim wrote:But, Cerin, what about all the people who did not vote because they believed in good faith that their votes didn't count? You can't chastise them for laziness; they were plainly told it didn't matter. And what about people in Michigan who would have voted for Obama if his name had been on the ballot but who voted for Clinton or stayed home? Why should only those who went and voted for Clinton be "re-enfranchised"?
I have no good answer. The whole thing sucks. I just think it's pure foolishness to stick by this stupid declaration by Dean and the DNC when it might mean losing the election. They handled the situation badly, they made a stupid threat, it didn't work. Why should we be bound by it? I don't think we should.
I guess I'm looking at this scientifically. A measurement you know is not accurate, from a sample you know was incorrectly taken, is not "better than nothing"; it's worse than nothing.
Yes, I guess that's the difference. I'm not concerned about the accuracy, I'm just concerned about the fact that in spite of the leadership bolloxing things up royally, lots of people voted.
Voronwë wrote:Cerin, would you agree with this statement: "The best result would be if Michigan and Florida's delegates are seated in a way that does not unfairly influence the result of the election"?
If you mean, that does not unfairly influence the result of the nominating process, then no, I would not agree with the statement. There is no seating of the delegates that could be determined to be fair to the nominating process, so it would be futile to try and base a solution on fairness.
I agree with Jn. A decision should be made on principle, irrespective of its effect on the results.