Anyone still watching the primary coverage from any of the major news outlets (I know, it's getting tiresome even for me) has probably heard of "super-delegates" by now.
In Denver this August, these unelected representatives of the Democratic Party will hold no loyalty to voters; they will cast their ballot for anyone they like and can change their endorsement at any time.
Am I the only one that, upon learning of this party organ, suddenly finds the party's name ironic?
The super-delegates' history and purpose actually undermine their legitimacy as decision makers in primaries or any other election, for that matter.
The 1968 Democratic National Convention debacle, where Mayor Daley's Chicago police department brutalized protestors for objecting to the party's coronation of Hubert Humphrey (who hadn't run in a single primary), sent the DNC-appointed South Dakota Senator George McGovern to investigate new reforms within the party.
Also-cheated Minnesota Sen. Gene McCarthy ran on an antiwar platform and had shown strongly in several primaries and in a fair system would've won, given Bobby Kennedy's tragic murder.
The DNC briefly reformed, but after the blowout defeats suffered by popular nominees such as George McGovern, Walter Mondale and the out-of-nowhere nomination of a no-name Georgia governor-turned single-term president, the DNC decide that elections were too important to be left to the people.
So we got the super-delegates, because the poor elected officials, labor figures and party leaders were feeling so left out in the midst of all this democracy and pined for a day when things were more genteel ... and autocratic.
You know, all animals are created equal ... but some are more equal than others.
And boy, these elder statesmen have picked some real humdingers, such as Michael "Tank Man" Dukakis.
Most of the nearly 20 percent of the delegation made up of these holdovers from the 19th century have pledged their support for New York Senator Hillary Clinton by an almost two-to-one margin ... despite Illinois Senator Barack Obama's lead in the popular vote.
This out-of-balance super-delegate count is supposed to reflect two things: first, it is thought to show that the party considers Clinton electable ... I guess just not in the primaries, and it suggests the Clinton's longstanding position in the DNC has ingratiated them to her.
This is patent nonsense. Since when do we elect presidents by turns? So now that Clinton has put in her time at the DNC Politburo, it's time we stood aside and let them anoint her?
It seems long past time to make some fundamental changes in the way Democrats select candidates.
First of all, no more delegates, no more big-time staged TV conventions.
We need a nationwide, one-day, popular vote open primary with a preferential-vote ballot. This would make the entire process cheaper, easier, simpler and more democratic ... you know, one person, one vote.
Some object that this would hem the candidates into big states and would eliminate visits to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Well, sorry folks, but California, New York, Texas and Ohio are where all the people live; that's why your favorite band didn't stop in Ames, or Greenville or Roanoke last year, either.
In the meantime, if this election comes down to what some call a "brokered convention," I quit. If the super-delegates select the DNC candidate, let them elect that candidate in the general election.
I'll be voting for Nader.
Leave a comment 5 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
The small campaigning helps keep regular Joes in the race. If it was 1 election for the primaries, the house hold name would win. You give the American people too much credit in differentiating the candidates. It was hard enough educating the voters on the candidates for Feb 5th. In early states they get to know them for over a year long.
Reply to this Top
Lets go all the way and have "Super Voters" in the general election too. Hillary is a whopping 2% behind Obama, what's the Super Delegates measley 20% of the voting power going to matter anyway?
Reply to this Top
Hater, that leads to an argument about public financing that I'd like to have. Plus, I'm not arguing that the American people are all that great, after all...didn't we get George W. Bush from our current system, among other political disasters?
Reply to this Top
Gabe - the fact that Bush is vastly unpopular now, even among Conservatives, is more a sign that his presidency 'outstayed its welcome' rather that that he was an incompetent political leader. In reference to your column, you highlight the reason why I don't trust a single Democratic candidate for any office. Regardless of their leadership potential, their charisma, and their other positive traits, the top Democratic leadership almost always insists that it knows better than the people do what will be best for those people. That's why the Democratic party is always so eager, for instance, to raise taxes - because government knows better how to spend your money on you than you do. The Republican side of the aisle isn't *much* better, but at least their process makes a bit more sense - case in point, John McCain has all but won the nomination, and many hardline conservatives are wringing their hands over it.
Reply to this Top
Gabe, don't know if you caught this from today's (Sunday) Washington Post: "'Superdelegates are a part of the process. They are supposed to exercise independent judgment,' said Clinton (N.Y.), who wants to put into play hundreds of the unelected delegates…she believes superdelegates, appointed by the party, should not simply anoint the candidate who is leading after the primary season.' "Clinton strategist Harold Ickes, himself a superdelegate, told reporters Saturday that the delegates should exercise "their best judgment in the interests of the party and the country."" Translation: Democracy's nice and all as long as the people agree with what the elites think is good for them. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/16/AR2008021602657.html?hpid=topnews
Reply to this Top