Democrats Will Retain "Superdelegates"

One of the most controversial aspects of the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination was the existence and power of a group of "superdelegates". These delegates were not chosen by their state delegations but designated by the national party, and they did not have to vote for the candidate preferred by their state's voters. They made up about 20% of the total number of delegates and in a close race could well determine who the candidate would be (even if the majority of voters had chosen a different candidate).

These unelected superdelegates are composed of "past presidents, current senate and Congress members, members of the Democratic National Committee, and other party luminaries such as labor leaders." Many people believed (including myself) that giving these unelected delegates 20% of all delegates votes and the ability to vote against the wishes of their own state, dilutes the concept of "one man, one vote" and has the stench of the old "smoke-filled back-room" politics of yesteryear.

The Democratic Party preaches about the sanctity of voters and giving power to the people, but the very concept of the superdelegate goes against that. The idea that party bigwigs can overrule the will of the voters is against the idea of letting the people choose their own candidate. After the 2008 election, the Democratic Party selected a Democratic Change Commission to look into the superdelegate question and decide whether the party should do away with them.

That commission decided to retain the superdelegates, but voted to strip them of the power to vote against the wishes of their state's voters. They said the superdelegates should vote for the candidate who won the majority of their state's votes (or delegates if a caucus was held instead of a primary). This was a good idea. It gave these officials a seat at the convention, but took away from them the power to defeat the wishes of the voters.

But it now looks like that won't happen. The rules committee has tossed out the commission recommendation and voted to retain the autonomy of the superdelegates. This does not come as a surprise. The change would have to be approved by the Democratic National Committee (all of whom are superdelegates). These people are not about to vote to curtail their own power over choosing the candidate of the party!

Instead, it looks like they will vote to slightly increase the number of elected delegates so that the superdelegates will only make up about 15% of total delegates instead of the current 20%. They actually are going to try and pass this weak gesture off as real reform. It is not. The superdelegates (ie - party bigwigs) will still have the power to overrule the will of rank-and-file party members.

If the party leaders want to practice smoke-filled back-room politics, then they should do away with the pretense of a democratic Democratic Party and do it. If they really believe in democracy, then they should do away with the power of superdelegates over elected delegates. There is no in-between proposal, and I'm dismayed that the party leaders don't realize this.

There is still a small chance that real reform can take place. The full DNC will vote on August 19-20 on whether to accept the rules committee's recommendation to retain the current superdelegate system. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for real reform though, since the powerful seldom vote to curtail their own power.