4 Comments

1. 

   Shadow

   June 9, 2008

   I am very sad that Jack is not our endorsed candidate. One of the reasons Franken won is because members of certain groups are obligated to vote for who the endorsed candidate is. They have no choice even if they wanted to switch. It’s wrong and it’s undemocratic. What happened to the party of ‘one voice, one vote’?

   Reply
2. 

   Robb

   June 10, 2008

   Whoa, Shadow, that sounds like circular logic… the reason Franken won the endorsement is because “certain groups” are “obligated to vote for the “endorsed candidate” Well, at the moment they voted for him he wasn’t the endorsed candidate and therefore they weren’t obligated to vote for him.

   A delegates responsibility is to support the candidate they pledged to vote for at the precinct, senate district, county and congressional district conventions (unless you are a super delegate) and, sorry to inform you, that is representative democracy and the outcome participatory voting. As an elected delegate you have responsibility to the caucus and voters who elected you to represent their voices and fulfill their promise. As a former delegate, I can confidently say there is no force involved for almost every one of the delegates. I stood up pledged to a candidate, was elected by like-minded people in my caucus and happily cast my vote without force when it came time for me to fulfill my duty to my fellow Democrats.

   Reply
3. 

   Terry Gydesen

   June 10, 2008

   Robb, it was a little more complex for delegates this time around. Some people were elected as delegates back in February, with the majority being selected by the end of March. Jack as we can all agree, was being ignored, so he had to work extra hard to get people to know him and were his stand was on the issues. His campaign worked hard to reach out to all of the delegates. Many delegates, after weighing in on both candidates, had decided they liked Jack and his ideas and had decided they preferred his views. It was a moral dilemma for many people. Do you vote for the person who you’ve come to believe is the best person for Senator, or do you vote for the candidate who’s caucus had voted for you to become a delegate?
   
   This is not an argument about one or the other being better, it’s an argument for each individual to decide, what is the right thing to do. It was a moral issue, and by the results we know that most of them voted with their original promise and voted with the sub caucus who elected them to the convention. I know several thought they would have the opportunity to cast a vote for Jack on the 2nd ballot. Unfortunately for them, there was no second ballot. Perhaps the people who seek to run as uncommitted will be a larger group next time around.

   Reply
4. 

   Robb

   June 10, 2008

   Well, it doesn’t sound all that different than years past. Unless you are a Republican and then the delegates are less bound to vote according to their caucus promise. Yes, the process began at the precinct caucus in February. And those people in their conventions were also making a determination of who would be the best Senator (that is not the exclusive dominion of reasoning reserved for DFL state delegates) and one does feel an obligation to vote with their first ballot promise. It has always been this way, at least for the last 20 years perhaps longer. This year is not unique. Did you ever read David Lebedoff’s “The 21st Ballot: A Party Struggle in Minnesota”? The years I was delegate, I believe I was bound to my sub-caucus for the first two ballots. I’m sure there were still people there voting for Cirese on the first ballot, in fact, I know there were because they were interviewed on MPR. Delegates don’t switch that much because they are most often activists who come up through the ranks as supporters for their candidates and they sub-caucus with other enthusiastic supporters of their candidate and they don’t suddenly get a change of heart while driving the car down Hwy 52 to Rochester and betray their promise. Any deliberation and consideration for a delegate is more than a moral issue — their are many social contracts involved in exercising civic duty in a participatory democracy.

   Reply