<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Chicagoist: Illinois Delegate List Finalized</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2008/03/17/illinois_delega.php</link>
<description>All comments for Illinois Delegate List Finalized</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>2009 Marcus Gilmer</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
<managingEditor>marcusisabadass@gmail.com</managingEditor>
<webMaster>marcusisabadass@gmail.com</webMaster>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<item>
<title>Spav1</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2008/03/17/illinois_delega.php#comment-1315334</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2008/03/17/illinois_delega.php#comment-1315334</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:41:33 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Superdelegates I think raise an interesting conflict that is an illustration on two schools of thought on elected officials: a delegate versus trustee model of electoral government.

That is, should elected officials (or here super delegates) vote with the votes of their state or should they vote their conscience and vote for who they think would act in the best interest of their constituents.

I am a fan of the trustee model myself.  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>