Superdelegates should vote their conscience

"Vote their conscience"? That's not why we elected them. We elected them to vote ours. Many politicians have no conscience, and many others' consciences can be bought by money and influence. Their conscience should be telling them to carry our vote. We'll see who has integrity in August.

I agree with Bronco.

Politicians supposedly represent the will of the people.

Elder doesn't necessarily mean wiser.
It is said, "The longer a politician remains in office, the more removed he or she becomes from the people he or she is supposed to represent.

There is an elder 'stateman' who has become an egomanic who cares nothing for the 'people' and instead serves himself and his political compadres.

Conscience? Shibai man has no conscience. He may have been wounded in WWII, but he is no hero today.

He should have retired many years ago as he is out of touch with the community!

Vote their conscience? What conscience? They are political animals and will vote for their own interests whether it be political payback or the hope for more power for themselves. Who ever heard of voting the wishes of the people? Yeah, if the primary caucus results were close to 50-50, then I would give them more leeway. But when Obama gets 70+ of the primary caucus votes, our Hawaii superdelegates need to bury their own personal wishes and answer the voters' call.

We should all vote whats in our hearts.

Maybe, just maybe we should all stay home on election day and vote for no one. Who would be president then? I gues the candidate with the biggest family because they wouldn't follow the rules.

Giving SuperD's votes capable of overturning pop vote was a huge mistake. However that is the current way.
It would be unconscionable for Hawaii SuperD's to vote for Clinton and overturn the landslide victory of Obama.
-Particularly unconscionable for any taxpayer paid officials (Senators / Representatives) to do such a thing.

This editorial is nearly as condescending as the concept of superdelegates itself. It begins: "It's a popular stance this election year to be disenchanted with the concept of superdelegates," as if to imply that this tide of disappointment is some kind of passing fad. Of course it's popular. It's popular because most people agree that the system is ludicrous.

Then it continues: "Partisans for both candidates have complained about irregularities, but the party opted against a recount." A recount? Here, the paper is trying to make it seem as if the organizational errors were the cause of the disparity in the results, and thus justifying the superdelegates voting however they'd like. If ever there was an example of the people overwhelmingly supporting one candidate in a state primary, this is it.

I do agree, however, that the superdelegates should vote however they'd like. Their mega-votes can be chosen by rolling the dice or flipping a coin, and it would all still be legal according to the Democratic primary system. This is precisely why the system should be changed. Will the Democratic leadership listen to its party members and revise the rules following this nomination? Or will the Democrats have to settle, as they often do, for leadership which seems to care more about its own interests rather than those of the party's individual members?

As much as it would seem the Advertiser's editorial staff may not like it, I have a feeling that this time the wool cannot be pulled over the voters' eyes.

This article brings up a valid argument. Superdelegates were created to break deadlocks. If there is no deadlock, there is no reason whatsoever for the superdelegates to turn the party selection against what the people have cast their votes to support. If they do so, they endanger the entire party's credibility, and reinforce the the voters' recognition that the party doesn't care what the people want. It's all about the machine. WE NEED CHANGE!!!

The Advertisers editorial in its arrogance explains how the Democratic Party leaders in their arrogance lost so many supporters over the years. Imagine the idea that a few Super Delagates can decide who the "best candidate" is to be because of "winability". What an absurd idea! No wonder the Democratic Party lost the respect of a lot of people when Nancy Pelosi, Neil Abercrombie, and Mazie Hirono, etc. refused to uphold their duty to the Constitution by Impeaching George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for their crimes against the Constitution and the people. They place politics over principal.

Pat wrote:

The Advertisers editorial in its arrogance explains how the Democratic Party leaders in their arrogance lost so many supporters over the years. Imagine the idea that a few Super Delagates can decide who the "best candidate" is to be because of "winability". What an absurd idea! No wonder the Democratic Party lost the respect of a lot of people when Nancy Pelosi, Neil Abercrombie, and Mazie Hirono, etc. refused to uphold their duty to the Constitution by Impeaching George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for their crimes against the Constitution and the people. They place politics over principal.

Sorry to disillusion you but IF there were anything to impeach them about it would have been tried already. Their shenanigans while possibly unscrupilous haven't been deemed illegal. And if you weren't happy with their scheming see what could happen IF Hillary gets in. She and Bill will make these two seem like kids in a candy store. Their ambition knows no bounds,as evidenced by the current canpaign.

You gotta be kidding!!!! Are you saying that the SuperD should IGNORE the voice of the people and vote for their 'smoke-room chosen' candidate. If that is the case, why the shibai of having primaries in the first place? If the local SuperD do not support our votes, then we need to find others who WILL REPRESENT THE PEOPLE ... and do it immediately.

Kudos to Abercromie....he is strong and brave to not care about the wrath of the Shibai man who is trying to control the democrats....

Time's up, Shibai man...get a clue, fool...

This is not 1950's..u thought coming to honolulu to parade in front of cameras would sway voters?

People more educated now...

Why u staying in politics longer than old stink fish? To cover your corruption? Is it the old 'birds of a feather' operation?

In the interest of harmony -- and melody -- I promise you there won't be any duets.
I'm really looking forward to the solo concert my friend Elton John is throwing in New York to help our campaign -- and I would very much like the chance to meet you there.
We're sending two supporters, along with their guests, to New York with VIP tickets for this very special, one-night-only concert on April 9, and it could be you. We will have a chance to talk just you and I -- and you will get to meet Elton John at the party we're throwing afterwards. It's going to be a great night.
Your support is so important to my campaign right now. As we ramp up our campaign in Pennsylvania, I need your help to make sure we have the resources we need to win. If you enter, you and I might see each other in New York on April 9. Make a contribution today.
Enter now for a chance to join me at Elton's solo concert in New York on April 9.
Elton's concert comes at such an exciting moment in our campaign. I'm seeing incredible enthusiasm as I travel across Pennsylvania and other states with upcoming contests.
We've got momentum at our backs, but a big task ahead of us. The Obama campaign is in the middle of a $3 million ad blitz in Pennsylvania, and we've got to do everything we can to overcome their fundraising advantage. Then we face competitive contests in Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, and Puerto Rico -- and we are already getting started in those states.
There's no better time to support our campaign, and no better way to do it than to make a contribution. And if you enter today, you may join me and Elton for a one-of-a-kind concert.
Enter now for a chance to join me at Elton's solo concert in New York on April 9.
Thank you so much for all your support. I hope you know how much you mean to me and my campaign.
Sincerely
Hillary

https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/eltonco...

It's just so typical of the Democrat party to have something as elitist and paternalistic as a "super delegate" system which bypasses the voter and concentrates inordinate power in the hands of party bigwigs. And it's typical of the Advertiser to try to find some kind of positive spin on all this. If the Republicans were the ones with this kind of system, you can bet that the Advertiser would be up in arms about "cronyism", "back room deals" etc. But since the Democrat party and the Advertiser are involved, it's just the same old liberal hypocrisy. Take it from a former 60s radical.

True..Dan Inouye's arrogance is outrageous.

"The Obamas' tax returns also show they had little savings during the same period. They reported no dividends or capital gains over the five years and reported a total of $33 in taxable interest, all of which was received in 2002. "

For someone who earns so much, not to have ANY savings? I mean, I am POOR, yet I have more than $33 in interest. Just what we need, another person who spends the money (or gives it away) as fast as he makes it. If he gets elected, we are just opening the door to more debt.

Happily Divorced Dad wrote:

"The Obamas' tax returns also show they had little savings during the same period. They reported no dividends or capital gains over the five years and reported a total of $33 in taxable interest, all of which was received in 2002. "

Interesting thoughts, but I don't see the connection to the editorial being discussed.

The superdelegates were created to break deadlocks - ties. When there is no tie, they should vote according to the masses.

Anyone who doesn't deserves a 7 cent solution.