Since the idea of superdelegates was initiated in the Democratic Party, they really have not had much effect on the final outcome of selecting a nominee. That is because in the recent past the nominee was chosen early as one candidate began to pull away from all the others. But there is a different dynamic in the 2008 primary season.
This year, there are two candidates virtually tied with more than half of the states having already chosen their delegates. There is a chance that tie will continue, maybe for another month or two (or even until the convention). That makes the superdelegates much more important. These superdelegates make up around 20% of the total Democratic delegates. That's a big hunk of delegates.
The possibility exists that one candidate could get a majority of votes cast and a majority of delegates chosen in the caucuses and primaries, but lose the nomination because the superdelegates preferred the other candidate. If that happens, it could look really bad for the Democratic Party.
It would give the perception to voters that the Democrats still choose their candidate in the "smoke-filled back rooms" by party big-shots. This would be very deflating, not only for independents and new voters, but also for many rank-and-file Democrats. What's the point of participating in the party process if you're just going to be over-ruled by the party bigwigs?
Frankly, such an occurrence would stink nearly as bad as the 2000 election in Florida, where the Supreme Court stepped in and took the election away from the voters.
Maybe it's time to consider doing away with the independent superdelegates. If we must give these "big-wigs" a delegate vote, they should be lumped in with the other delegates and all delegates should be apportioned according to how the state's primary or caucus turned out.
The Democrats stopped the convention choosing our nominee, and went to a primary/caucus system so the people would be able to choose the nominee. It is time to change the superdelegate system for the same reason.
I was curious about the history of superdelegates in the Democratic Party, so I did a litle research and found this interesting post at Texas Liberal.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the whole concept of superdelegates, while uniquely Democratic (with a big D), isn't very democratic (with a small d). If these superdelegates decide to thwart the will of the rank and file at the convention, I suspect there will be a riot in Denver to rival the one in Chicago 40 years ago.