Apr
25
Superdelegates: often talked about but never questioned
April 25, 2008 | | Leave a Comment
By Tia Tian Chi
As the excitement around the Pennsylvania primary calms down, the aftershocks within the Democratic Party and its constituents will continue through until the next primaries in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6th. But what’s being overlooked despite all the media coverage is that despite Senator Clinton’s seemingly victory over Senator Obama in the delegate count, statistically, it is also unlikely for him to reach the magic number of 2,025 delegates until the end of all primaries. Inevitably, in the end, it will be up to those often talked about, but never questioned, superdelegates.
Of the 4,025 delegates that attend the Democratic National Convention in August, the superdelegates number is approximately 794, about 1/5 of the entire delegate count at the convention. According to Max Follmer at The Huffington Post, the superdelegates were created in 1980 as “a way to put the brakes on too much bottom-up initiative if necessary.” George McGovern, former Democratic Party Chairman and Democratic nominee in the 1972 Presidential campaign, conceded that the creation of these superdelegates, who are not subject to the will of the voters, were “a concession some years later to the party regulars who thought that certain people should automatically be delegates.” Follmer describes the superdelegate membership:
• All members of the Democratic National Committee
• All Democratic members of the House of Representatives
• All Democratic members of the United States Senate
• All Democratic governors
• All former Democratic presidents
• All former Democratic leaders of the United States Senate
• All former Democratic Speakers of the House
• All former Democratic House Minority Leaders
• All former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee
So then what is the problem with the superdelegates? Many will say there is no problem with the system and that the game should be played as it is. But people from the other side will say that it is wholly an un-democratic system in which the candidates vying for the nomination are essentially bartering the superdelegates for votes that are, in effect, much more meaningful than a “regular” voters ballot. This bartering is not limited to political favours, however, as a New York Times article back in mid-February cited that “[s]uperdelegates have received more than $890,000 in campaign contributions from Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton in the last three years”.
The “purchasing” of delegate votes is tremendously disturbing for a system that prides itself for its “any person can become President” mantra. Rather, perhaps it should be changed to “any person that has the most money can become President” or “any person that can take the most money from financially-troubled voters and use that money to buy votes can become President.” The increasing reliance on unaccountable superdelegates and the incredible amounts of money being thrown at election campaigns points at a system that is perhaps going in the wrong direction and has been for decades. The fact that superdelegates even exist should tell voters how much their own parties trust them.
