It's Up To The Superdelegates To Prove Democrats Believe In Democracy

[WillyT]

It's up to the superdelegates to prove Democrats believe in democracy
It will be a travesty if party apparatchiks choose a presidential candidate against the wishes of ordinary voters

Gary Younge in New York The Guardian,
Monday February 18 2008

<snip>

In December, the president of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, stood for re-election. Karimov, a one-time ally in the "war on terror" who in 2002 had one opposition leader boiled alive, has long faced criticism from human rights groups and the United Nations. Having already served two terms, he was he was not even eligible to stand. A minor detail for a man like Karimov. His three opponents all endorsed him and did not ask Uzbeks to vote for them. Those who would not endorse him were disqualified and imprisoned. Karimov won the day with 88.1% of the vote.

There is a profound difference between holding an election and having a democracy. Elections are the best means that we have come up with so far for giving people a voice in the running of their affairs. Democracy is the system which ensures that voices are heard by empowering them with the ability to change those who run our affairs.

Elections, in and of themselves, are a purely technical matter. The authorities name the day, tell the voters, provide the booths and the equipment. The voters make their choice. The authorities then tally the results. But, as we know from countless incidences, from Kenya to Florida, the technical elides effortlessly into the political. Which day? Which voters? Where are the booths? How does the equipment work? Who's counting? Whose votes count? All this has a bearing on the result. That's why democracy, if it is working, gives us the right to kick out the authorities.

Since the beginning of January, the Democratic party in the US has held elections that have provided great excitement and held the attention of much of the world. We are about to see if its commitment to democracy is equally impressive. Having started this election season with scenes of rural folk gathering in frontrooms and schoolhalls to stand up and be counted, the final decision is now likely to be made by party apparatchiks accountable only to themselves. Or worse still, the courts.

For the one thing we do know at this stage is that unless something dramatic happens, winning the Democratic primaries and winning the Democratic nomination will not be the same thing. The elections we have all been watching account for 80% of the total voting delegates who will nominate the candidate. The remaining 20% goes to "superdelegates" - Democratic legislators, governors, former presidents and vice-presidents, and other party officials.

At present, Barack Obama is winning by a narrow margin. By most calculations, voters have given him around 133 more elected delegates than Hillary Clinton - a mere one-eighth of the total in states yet to vote. Predictions of Clinton's imminent demise - like most other predictions in this race - are premature. It is far more conceivable that she will turn this around by April than it was on New Year's Day that Obama would be the frontrunner. This race has the peculiar distinction of being both volatile and close.

So close in fact that the superdelegates will almost certainly determine the outcome. If they do, it will not just have the potential of making the entire process a travesty of democracy but also a tragedy for the Democratic party. For if the superdelegates go against the popular will of the voters, whoever emerges as "victor" will enter the presidential election shorn of democratic legitimacy and devoid of electoral credibility. Indeed in much the same shape as George Bush emerged in 2000 after Florida.

<snip>

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/18/hillaryclinton.barackobama

I couldn't agree more.

:shrug:

[BOSSHOG]

1. May I suggest

that we hear from all those "ordinary" voters who haven't voted yet before we get the Obama Cart before the horse.

I will vote in Mississippi on March 11th. I haven't decided which of our two candidates I will vote for. I like both of them, and am proud of both of them. What a great pair to represent our party. But Obama supporters have pissed me off to the nth degree. If I keep checking in at DU GD-P there will be no doubt I will vote for Clinton and it won't have anything to do with what her supporters might offer or anything she has said.

[pinto]

2. Color me naive, but I suspect "super delegates" will largely support the electorate.

Media has jumped on the "what if" of a divided outcome. That's their MO - it's a good story. I suggest we look down the road a bit, since the delegate count remains unclear to an eventual majority going into the convention.

Fun to watch the hoopla, though.

:hi:

[Demeter]

3. Then We Are DOOMED

The whole point of the Superdelegate scheme was to subvert democracy, if the Party honchos didn't like the results of people voting.

[susankh4]

4. That is pure bull!

The purpose of the Superdels is to protect the party from populist movememts that go against the philosophy of the party.

We should all stand behind our party's efforts to protect itself from a sudden influx of "independents" and "soft republicans" who have no idea what we are about... but just want to jump on some populist candidate's bandwagon.

[Demeter]

5. The Superdelegate Scheme Was a Direct Response to the McGovern Candidacy

which the Party opposed. When McGovern, the peace candidate, lost so badly to Nixon, the powers that be decided to put in an override switch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

for a brief history.

[bpeale]

8. the current system was was put into place in the 80's i believe

so the McGovern thing sounds like B.S.

[paulk]

6. there is no requirement for any political party to choose it's

nominee through a "democratic" process.

------------------

The job of a party is to choose the candidate that they believe can win in the general election. The "super delegates" have a role to play in determining who that is in a closely contested primary.

[susankh4]

7. Exactly!

And also one that will stand for the principles of it's constituants.

So... why is that a problem?

[paulk]

9. something that gets missed in the whole "superdelegate"

thing - is just that - that superdelegates stand for their constituents, having been elected to office, and are in fact far more representative of the party overall than the results of a primary and especially a caucus.