Portal Talk:Superdelegate Transparency Project

What are we doing for caucus state vote totals?

We need to find a way to track donations from the candidates to the campaign funds of supers. What is the best way to present this data? On the individual state tables or as one table showing all such donations? See this link for reference.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/77106/

Please share your thoughts --Markometer

SW: Senators agreeing with voters
I posed this question to Avelino & it was suggested to re-post here for brainstorming:

How should we count Senators (assuming 2 Dems for a state) in terms of Agreeing with voters? If the total delegates for a state were split 55/38, should both count as Candidate One? Should the Senators split: 1 for Candidate One & 1 for Candidate Two?

Any thoughts? --Xscinx 09:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)

This is a good question and I've been tossing it over in my brain as I've been working today. I think we simply go with the statewide winner. In some ways its an inaccurate way to look at it; but keep in mind that this is a visibility project. The data will be available to others and they can cut the data however they wish. So I think te best way to do it is simply Yes or No against the statewide total. --Mark M 06:55, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Why not tally the following for each state: --Schneidg 22:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)
 * How superdelegates other than House members would be distributed if it were proportional based upon the popular vote. E.g., if state X has 30 superdelegates (other than House members) and the percent split was 56 A / 44 B, then the proportional (or "fair") split would be 17 A / 13 B, or net +4 for A.
 * How the actual distribution of the number of superdelegates other than House members falls out. E.g., in state X it might be 10 A / 8 B / 12 Unannounced
 * How the "fair" split compares to the "actual" split. E.g. A is net -7 and B is net -5. So the "net net" result is that A is down 2. This could be useful for unannounced superdelegates who feel that they should in some sense collectively represent the will of the voters of their state.

SW: Tallying SD counts for Congresspeople
I have been using a "+1" tag to denote Superdelegates relative to contests that have already completed. E.g. if Obama wins a Congressional district with 4 pledged delegates and the Congressperson endores him, I have been entered 4 +1 in the Pledge Obama column. Please check out Massachusetts to see what I mean.

Does this agree with everyone? Is it easier to tally using this method? --Xscinx 14:40, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Declaration of Independent Democrats
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for the people of a political party to make a Pledge that on November 4, 2008, I will only vote for the candidate that wins the most pledged delegates in the Democratic nomination process of 2008. If through an undemocratic act of arrogance the party leadership or Super Delegates override the will of the pledged delegates and not offer the legitimate winner of all the pledged delegates as the parties nominee, I will only vote for the legitimate winner of the pledged delegates as a Write In Candidate on November 4, 2008. This pledge is made as an act of moral conscious in the name of justice, honor, liberty and democracy. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we should declare the causes which impel us to sign this Declaration of Independent Democrats Pledge.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all women and men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness along with the right to collectively determine the nominee of our party based on the popular vote of each and every member within our party. There is no place for the elitist undemocratic institution of a Super Delegate in the Democratic Party, for we are the party of and by the people.

The purpose of this pledge is to stop Senator Hillary Clinton from leading the Democrat Party into a suicide charge of spin and hype that dishonestly will perpetrate an undemocratic and Un-American disenfranchisement of the loyal Democrat voters that participated in ALL the Democrat Primaries and Caucuses. In simple terms, we don't want Senator Clinton to do the same thing to us that George W. Bush did to us in 2000; steel the election.

This is not a threat, it is a serious pledge and before making this pledge really ask yourself if you intend to back it up.

This is not a strategic pledge it is a moral one that is meant to inform the corrupt and arrogant powerful within the Democratic Party that we the people will not put up with anything but a legitimates democratic out come in the picking of the Democrat Party's Nominee for the President of the United States. To be consistent with the morality of fairness Florida and Michigan must be redone, allowing a fair competition. This actually benefits Senator Clinton by giving her more potential elected delegates to try and win to over come Senator Obama's delegate lead. This is honorable and legitimate and fair.

With regard to the extremely undemocratic existence of the Super Delegates, this should be the last election that Super Delegates take part in. The Democratic Party needs to really be a party of the people and abolish the Super Delegates after this election. Sadly in this election the Super Delegates have to determine the future of the Democratic Party, so they seriously need to consider the impact of this pledge and the impact of their actions!

George Miles

...you are welcome to add your name.