The most fair thing for superdelegates to do is:

if they don't vote for the person they believe will be the strongest candidate for the party they essentially render themselves meaningless. they might as well not exist. some people would be happy if this were the case but that's another matter. as it is, they can defuse the situation we find ourselves in right now (march 22nd). let's hope their real Democrats and not Dinos..

Whats the difference between choice 3 and 4 and why is #4 leading??

After this election, the Democratic Party should retire the "Superdelegate" mechanism from their nomination process. It belongs to a time when it was still thought acceptable for the party power elite to override the popular choice for the nominee of our party. Today, few superdelegates relish the idea of casting an independent vote; most would rather find any excuse to duck the necessity of casting a vote at all. I would argue that this is as it should be. Top-down enforcement of the insiders' choice for candidate over the choice of the voters is an undemocratic idea that frankly smacks of how the Republicans usually operate. It's embarassing that it's our party, not theirs, that clings to this outmoded and imperious mechanism.

When a question such as this needs asking, the superdelegate system needs to be tossed out. (The electoral college also needs to go, but that will never happen. It would be easier to simply have larger states annex smaller, less populous states. Sure, Montana would put up a fight, but fuck them and their twelve-citizens population.)

If the superdelegates don't vote for what they think is best for the party, then they serve absolutely no function. They are male nipples. Decorative, sure, and fun to haved sucked, but that's about it.

The Obamaniacs have basically taken any option other than voting for Obama off the table. They have clearly stated that if Hillary is the nominee, dire things will happen. So it's a moot point in the end.

I'm looking at the super delegate vote like this - The vote is like shooting a 3 pointer in a Basketball game. Two teams are going at it playing back and fourth from state to state and in a tight ball game like this one, in order to win our gal/guy MUST shoot three pointers to get ahead or win the game.

My bet is on Hillary to WIN it all in the last quarter of this game! Go Hillary!

I'm also thinking that if the votes from MI and FL are not seated by the DNC whoever has done the best job of disenfranchising those voters (Obama) will suffer if he wins (not likely) but will suffer anyway because voters will say, "he didn't support us, why should I support him?

I agree that the interest of the party should be the deciding factor. I want a Democratic President. Anyone who thinks McCain will be easy to knock off is be delusional. I also believe many of thre crossover and independant votes that Obama secured in the primaries won't hold up in the general election. McCain has (for whatever reason) always appealed to that voter.

I am sorry, but this will be a political decision and we cannot trust the supers to make their decision based on who they think will be the strongest nominee for the party. That rational decision will be influenced and corrupted by how the most senior members of their party and their political allies have chosen, by personal calls from the candidates or their key advisers or spouse, and various assurances of how their constituents or their pet issue will be served by the potential nominee. Recently, I read about a legislative decision the leadership said members would vote based on the testimony during hearings... nonsense, the lobbyists will be alive and well and trying to influence the outcome despite the testimony. .... and those conversations are private. Pols cannot be trusted to make rational choices.

And then, when all this superdelegate debate is over we will have to deal with the electoral college. I can't wait!

Superdelegates. Is that like the 21st century version of the 19th century smoke-filled back-room where the movers and shakers make the ultimate decision on who the candidate will be?

Danny,

First, Obama did not disenfranchise the voters in Michigan and Florida. Their state Democratic Party officials did, by advancing their primary dates up in the calendar even though they were forewarned that they would forfeit their delegates if they did so.

Second, Hillary Clinton made a huge tactical error in trying to claim the delegates from those bogus primaries in FL and MI. If we are going to honor the fundamental principles of democracy we cannot announce to the voters and the candidates that the results of an election will not count, and then turn around and say, "whoops, we're going to count those votes after all." It ought to be apparent that such a resolution is unfair and ridiculous. If Hillary was so deeply concerned about the disenfranchisement of voters in those states, she would have advocated vigorously for full and fair primaries from the beginning. But instead she took the low road and wasted months insisting that somehow those delegates belonged to her, even though she was the only one on the ballot in Michigan. Not only did this cost her the respect of many in the Party (she is my Senator), but she also ran out the clock, and now it appears that those states will not manage to gather up the resources and the political will to hold do-over elections.

Hillary Clinton and the incompetent staff that she chose to hire have nobody but themselves to blame for the way this race has turned out. She began the contest with every imaginable advantage, yet has somehow managed to make a mess of it. I keep waiting for Hillary's supporters to realize that the sloppy and ineffective conduct of her campaign is reason enough not to trust her with the Presidency.

Nate- Obama was on the ballot in Michigan before he took his own name off the MI ballot. Tactical error indeed. Obama doesn't want to count the votes in those states because Clinton won both and Obama knew she would at the time he took his name off the ballot. Obama also campaigned in Florida as I understand it (google it). He broke the law and is unable to win the nomination at this point as well - not to mention he will not win the trust of America after becoming the victim in the now famous speech. WOW what a mouth full of damage he did there. Unless of course you support him and cannot see the forrest through the trees.

Is there any good reason why one of these alternatives if stated twice (and the count for it divided)?

Is there any good reason the obvious choice of "They should cast their vote based on the total committed delegates received and popular votes cast"? Hmm.. sounds like this a PUSH poll for HRC to me.