For the first time since they were conceived, the votes of so-called "super-delegates" may actually matter with regard to the nomination of the Democratic Party candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States. This is a decision that we are all weighing carefully.
In fact, I wrote an article about this matter which raised the question as to how I should go about making my decision, much of which is set forth below. It was originally published on the list serve of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party (I have made minor edits here so it will make sense in this context):
As a matter of explanation and illumination, super-delegates are either Governors of States or Territories, members of Congress or members of the DNC. They are un-pledged delegates to the National Convention in Denver. They are either elected by their districts, states, state parties, or other constituencies such as the Democratic State Treasurer’s Association, or the Democratic Municipal Officials Association, or similar organizations. 75 DNC members were nominated by Governor Dean in 2004, and elected by the other DNC members.
The question I pose is not who super-delegates should vote for, but rather how they should come to their decision.
The question is not whether or not they should exist, because the fact is, they do. As my torts professor once said, in his thick German accent, if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a Volkswagen, but she doesn't. What ever you think of the system itself, it is the reality we work in at this time.
And the question is not whether or not the Super-Delegates should come to a decision, because sitting it out is essentially a vote against any candidate, since we are part of the majority needed to nominate. Not voting does not lower the number needed to nominate and also deprives our constituency (whatever that may be) of their representation under the current rules. I don't think any of us would really advocate for that.
This whole matter raises issues about the very nature of representative democracy. Is one elected to represent their constituency, or to vote their conscience, or some other formula? How does that apply to the present situation?
As pertains to myself, and 18 other elected DNC members, we were elected by the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party four (4) years ago. Our terms run from the day after one convention, to the day after the next. We are among the first elected delegates to a National Convention. Only Senators elected in 2002 were elected earlier. The CDP Executive Board will be electing some of the first delegates to the 2012 National Convention this June. That election has no effect on the current convention decision.
What are we elected to do? Who were we elected to represent?
Other formulations may apply to other super-delegates, but here are the various formulations I have come up with, at least as pertains to the 19 CDP DNC members elected in 2004:
1. I was elected because my electorate trusted my judgement and I should vote my conscience.
2. I was elected to represent those who elected me 4 years ago, who are not the same people who are on the CDP Executive Board at the present time. I should poll the former Executive Board of the CDP, after the last primary and before the convention.
3. I was elected to represent the CDP Executive Board, as an institutional body. I should poll the current Executive Board of the CDP, after the last primary and before the convention.
4. I was elected by the CDP Executive Board to represent the same people they represent, the Democrats of the State of California, and thus should vote however the majority of Democrats voted on February 5, 2008.
5. I should vote for the candidate most likely to win in November, in my opinion.
6. I should vote for the candidate who best exemplifies the Platform of the CDP.
7. I should vote for the candidate who best exemplifies the Platform of the National Convention.
8. I should vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, unless for some bizarre reason, I can honestly say that such a candidate is an anathema to the Democratic Party principles as I understand them.
9. I was elected to synthesize all of the above into a decision, which you recognize is an impossible task, but trusted I would do the right thing for the right reason.
10. Vote the way you personally want me to and if I don't you will hold me personally responsible. (This is not really a choice, but I recognize it is perhaps a reality for some).
These are the two I think are the strongest factors my constituents would believe I should use in making a decision:
1. I was elected because my electorate trusted my judgement and I should vote my conscience.
* * *
5. I should vote for the candidate most likely to win in November, in my opinion.
First, let me say I think they are both excellent candidates. However, as a result of the California Debate, I came to the conclusion that Sen. Clinton was the stronger candidate. That debate and the California Primary were crucial factors in my eventual decision. I simply felt she was just a little better, and the results of the California Primary only solidified that conclusion.
Do note however, that if Sen. Obama enters the Convention with a lead in pledged delegates, that I will re-think my position. This would be based upon the idea that:
8. I should vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, unless for some bizarre reason, I can honestly say that such a candidate is an anathema to the Democratic Party principles as I understand them.
I believe the number of pledged delegates a candidate has should be a factor in my decision making. That doesn't mean I automatically change candidates if Sen. Obama has more pledged delegates in Denver, but it does mean I will study the situation more carefully. The greater the lead, the more intense the study.
But, even if that does occur, I also have to take into consideration the fact that California voted for Sen. Clinton, which I believe should be a very strong consideration. Among the ten grounds for deciding I listed in my article, was this one:
4. I was elected by the CDP Executive Board to represent the same people they represent, the Democrats of the State of California, and thus should vote however the majority of Democrats voted on February 5, 2008.
This is a real mess. These last two considerations, which in my mind are very strong considerations, are likely to be in conflict.
Which leads me to this one:
9. I was elected to synthesize all of the above into a decision, which you recognize is an impossible task, but trusted I would do the right thing for the right reason.
So, I ask you to trust. And, I think you should trust someone like me who is at least considering all of these factors, as opposed to someone who has his or her mind completely made up and has never even contemplated these matters.
Frankly, I hope it doesn't come down to super delegates deciding this.
Again, thank you for writing!
Now, let’s make sure we are united after the convention, so we can win in November and “Take Back America!”
Democratically Yours,
vs. 
