A question on my mind since the New Hampshire primary is this: What good are representatives that do not represent the voice of the people?
Sanders won a landslide victory 60 percent to 38 percent, yet nearly all superdelegates pledged support to Clinton. How does this fit the ideology of representation?
I understand they have that right, and I have no problem with them casting their vote at the polls for Clinton, but shouldn’t their responsibility be to voice the will of the people of New Hampshire nationally and at the convention? There’s an awful lot of talk about how Washington is failing us these days, but look at our representation in our own state.
We, in this case, are misrepresented. Take Shaheen, for instance. She publicly supports Clinton despite New Hampshire’s overwhelming choice. Think that doesn’t effect the national race? Why, Senator?
Maybe the next question ought to be, Should these individuals represent New Hampshire? Whether you support Clinton or Sanders, our representatives should reflect our votes.
In a state that holds such a proud tradition for being the first primary, these superdelegates take the honor out of it when they ignore the people’s wishes.
I read one of the letters stating “Wrong time for revolution.” It seems like maybe not nationally, but our representation at home surely needs a shake-up
No more about the GOP having issues; it seems the Democrats have theirs as well. Seems the same plague is on both their houses.
JESSE ELDERKIN
Plymouth