There's quite a bit of talk about how superdelegates should handle their role in the primary process.



MoveOn is currently circulating a petition that reads
"The Democratic Party must be democratic. The superdelegates should let
the voters decide between Clinton and Obama, then support the people's
choice."

http://pol.moveon.org/superdelegates/



I'm sure this petition will be quite popular. No one, no matter
which candidate they support, wants to see someone nominated who didn't
get the most support from Democratic primary voters. And I
suspect the vast majority of superdelegates do not want to be seen as
the ones
making the decision of who will be our nominee and possibily
overturning the will of the American people.



The big question, however, is what the best measure of the "will of the American people" should be.



One suggestion is that superdelegates vote for whoever their state or
district voted for. This won't work because these districts
will probably be about evenly split meaning that the race will come
down to which superdelegates decide to ignore all that and just vote
for who they like. So you're left with just as much of a mess as
before.



Another idea is to vote for whoever wins the popular vote. This
sounds good in theory, but the problem is that we are unlikely to have
an acutal count of the popular vote due to caucuses not reporting their
raw numbers. So there will be no official popular vote total to
look at.



This leaves us with the idea of voting for whoever wins the most
pledged delegates. It's not perfect, but it's certainly the best
approximation of the will of Democratic primary voters.



Therefore, I would like to see superdelegates promise to support
whoever wins the most pledged delegates. This is a simple
way for superdelegates to avoid creating the kind of divisive
conclusion to this race that will make it difficult for us to unite and
win the Presidency. In the end, that's what all of us care about.