Superdelegates

In the Democratic nomination process, there are two kinds of delegates that will vote at the national convention: pledged delegates and unpledged delegates. Pledged delegates are the ones we vote for in the primaries. The concept is similar to the electoral college that elects the president, but it is different in some very important ways. The Democratic Party uses proportional representation to select pledged delegates, as opposed to the winner-take-all system that the Republican Party uses. The delegates will more closely reflect the proportion of the candidate’s supporters in the primaries.

Unpledged delegates are trickier. They are delegates who gain their status by holding an elected office or by being selected by the state’s party. Who votes for unpledged delegates? Well, you vote for them. Sort of. Indirectly. When you vote for a governor or congressman, you are also voting for the candidate’s delegate status. So you see, unpledged delegates are sort of democratic. In a way.

Pledged delegates are selected because they promise to vote for a particular candidate. Unpledged delegates can vote for anyone they wish, even if it does not reflect the expressed will of the majority of voters. For this reason, they are called “super”. A superdelegate’s vote can override the votes of millions of individuals. If your spider sense is tingling, it may be because it seems to violate the one-person-one-vote rule that is characteristic of liberal democracy.

Superdelegates are problematic in numerous ways. The justification for them on democratic grounds is specious. It requires voters to not only select their candidate based on their policy proposals and character, but also on how they might vote in the presidential race. It nationalizes the vote for a state office on a matter that state candidates do not always publically declare. Superdelegates can also change their minds, so even if you manage to vote for a candidate that supports your presidential choice, the result is not guaranteed. Superdelegates cannot be called democratic if they do not reflect the actual desires of real voters.

Does the Democratic Party distrust its own members? Do they not consider the democratic process a valid way to choose a national leader? It appears that some in the party feel that we need an elite class to curb popular enthusiasm. Self-rule, after all, opens the possibility that the people might choose representatives of which the elite disapprove. It is doubtful that most of the Democrats who hold superdelegate status see it this way. Then why do we need superdelegates?

The only way superdelegates can have any bearing on the nomination is if they undo the democratic process. They are at best useless, and at worse harmful. They can have no positive effect. If the leader’s margin is wide enough that superdelegates cannot overturn the primary results, superdelegates are useless. If the margin is narrow and the superdelegates vote with the majority of the people, they have done nothing that would have changed the outcome had they not existed. If they vote in a way that overturns the primary results, they have disenfranchised millions. That is a bad way to lead into a general election in which independent votes are needed.

There is only one thing that could make me consider withholding my vote in the Presidential race. It has nothing to do with who is nominated. I could support either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for president. If the Democratic Party uses rules and regulations to circumvent democracy and disenfranchise voters, it erodes confidence in the entire process. It is difficult to make the case to independents that they need to join our party if they see us sweeping away millions of votes in favor of an elite class.

I say I would consider withholding my vote, but I would only consider it for about five seconds. 2008 is too important. I don’t want to usher in Bush’s third term. Of course I will vote, and I will vote for the Democrat. However, if the superdelegates overturn the results of the primaries, I will take on a new mission. It will be to urge the Party to do away with superdelegates altogether. Failing that, I will make sure that as many superdelegates as possible lose that status in the next election cycle. Yes, I will actively recruit candidates to run in the primaries against sitting Democrats, and I will campaign for them like there is no tomorrow.

This about more than just one election. Out of the past seven presidential campaigns, the Republicans have won five. The nation is divided down the middle on almost every important issue. A few of us in the Democratic Party have been working on breaking that stalemate and bringing independent voters into the fold. All of our efforts would be undermined by a Party that uses an elite class to check the voters. Even if we win the White House in 2008, that one step forward would be purchased at the cost of two steps back in the fight for independents.

The 2006 mid-term results, I think, have masked how much trouble the Democratic Party is really in. The ineptitude of the Republicans, with their scandal of the week, has given the Democratic leadership the false impression that voters really love them, and will carry them to office on their shoulders. Americans are turning against the Republicans, but the Democrats are winning by default, not on their merits. If that does not change very soon, we will give back all our gains, and then some.

© 2008 Bryan Lower

Feedback: