In his NYT op-ed, a chief consultant for Al Gore’s presidential campaign, Ted Devine, summed up my sentiments about superdelegates exactly:
If the superdelegates determine the party’s nominee before primary and caucus voters have rendered a clear verdict, Democrats risk losing the trust that we are building with voters today. The perception that the votes of ordinary people don’t count as much as those of the political insiders, who get to pick the nominee in some mythical back room, could hurt our party for decades to come.
The damage would be amplified if African-Americans or women, two of the party’s key constituencies, feel that a candidate who represents their most fervent hopes and aspirations is deprived of a nomination rightfully earned by majority support from voters. [source: NYT]
The last thing that we need in a race that has been able to bring incredible numbers of people in the voting process who have never been involved before is to have the rug pulled out from underneath them because some superdelegates decided to pimp the game. That would truly be foul. And it would be sending a clear message to these people: “Gotcha! Nah, nothing’s really changed–you’re still little and we’re still big. Beat it, small fry.”
Although I am an Obama supporter, this is not about being fair to him, it’s about being fair with the voting process, period. Superdelegates should not be the determining factor of a race like this, nor should they possess that kind of power. But they do–so what should the superdelegates do with it? Again, Devine nails it on the head:
After listening to the voters, the superdelegates can do what the Democratic Party’s rules originally envisioned. They can ratify the results of the primaries and caucuses in all 50 states by moving as a bloc toward the candidate who has proved to be the strongest in the contest that matters — not the inside game of the delegate hunt, but the outside contest of ideas and inspiration, where hope can battle with experience and voters can make the right and best choice for our party and our future. [source: NYT]
It remains to be seen as to whether they will do the right thing or not.
2 responses so far ↓
1
SL
// Feb 19, 2008 at 10:08 am
While I agree with you and ideally would like to see the superdelegates reflect the voice of the people, it is extremely important that process is followed. I think the democratic party should review the role and function of the superdelegates. That being said, I don’t think rules should be changed at this stage or arbitrarily to adjust to the uniqueness of this particular primary. That would create an open field where every rule is open for discussion and adjustment.
2
Mike
// Feb 20, 2008 at 11:17 am
I don’t think that the rules should be changed now either but do think that the whole superdelegate concept should be revisited after the candidacy is determined. As for what they should do now, although superdelegates CAN vote for who they personally want, it is not a RULE. They can and should vote for the candidate the voters in their state/district voted for. That would be the right thing to do if they have any interest in protecting their party and the democratic process in general.
Leave a Comment