April 8, 2016 5:44 AM

Democratic superdelegates: Proof that Republicans don't have a monopoly on corruption

There are two prominent features of the Democratic Party’s presidential selection process that are thoroughly undemocratic and undermine faith in the party: superdelegates (which favor Hillary Clinton) and caucuses (which favor Bernie Sanders). As the New York Times editorial board explained: “Superdelegates are party bigwigs — 712 Democratic leaders, legislators, governors and the like. They can vote for any candidate at the nominating convention, regardless of whether that candidate won the popular vote. These unpledged delegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win the nomination, and could thus make all the difference.”

It would be difficult to look at the process by which each major political party chooses their Presidential nominee without concluding that it’s little more than a colossal clusterf—k. This is particularly true for what New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow refers to as the (Un)Democratic Party. Democrats should frankly should be embarrassed about the lack of transparency and the surfeit of confusion and silliness inherent in their nomination process (Republicans don’t exactly cover themselves in glory, either).

It’s not especially shocking that Democrats introduced superdelegates as a means of increasing the power and influence of the party’s elite. Presented as a way to ensure the party nominated someone who could win the general election and, once in office, could govern effectively, superdelegates comprise fully one-third of the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination. They aren’t elected by voters and are accountable only to themselves. They exist primarily to ensure that the party doesn’t nominate another 1976 version of Jimmy Carter.

As Tom Foreman wrote for CNN.com in 2008 when the role of superdelegates was also being hotly debated: “A few decades ago, Democratic leaders felt that sometimes, Democratic voters were choosing poor presidential candidates: campaigners who couldn’t win elections, or even if they could, they didn’t please Democratic kingmakers.”

This system is unjust, in part because those superdelegates are not prohibited from declaring their loyalty before voting has ended. At the very least, they should be barred from committing before voting is completed in their own states.

Without this prohibition, the establishment puts its thumb on the scale and signals its approval and disapproval ahead of Democratic voters. How can this be defended?

The answer, of course, is that there is no credible defense for the superdelegate system, just as there’s no sensible explanation for the caucus system, which may have made sense in another day and time, but now is just another vehicle for corruption and confusion.

The idea that the Democratic elites need to be able to put their thumb on the scale to reign in the more undisciplined and unruly elements of the party is as arrogant as it is anti-democratic. Superdelegates, to not put too fine a point on it, exist to thwart the will of Democratic primary voters who might make an “unfortunate,” “inappropriate,” and/or “incorrect” choice.

I understand that the Democratic Party leadership may have their own ideas about who should be their standard-bearer, but in a democracy where “one man, one vote” is still supposed to mean something, voters should decide who represents them. That important task shouldn’t be in the hands of unelected superdelegates accountable to no one.

If we’re going to talk about a broken system, we can very well level out caucuses, which are a target-rich environment when it comes to vote buying and generalized corruption.

[T]he Boston Globe editorial page argued for the elimination of caucuses last month, saying: “In a caucus, voters who aren’t physically able to sit in a school gymnasium and debate the merits of their candidate with their neighbors get shut out. And obscure rules that vary from state to state governing delegate allotment and proxy balloting make for confusing inconsistencies when tallying results.”

For a Democratic Party that prides itself on the grand ideals of inclusion and fairness, the nominating process is anything but.

Indeed. If Democrats can’t conduct a nomination process that’s uniform, predictable, efficient, and, most importantly, above reproach, then what claim do we have to the moral high ground?

Answer: none.

Instead of shepherding a process that might actually kinda sorta represent the will of Democratic voters, we have a process that looks as if it may well have been designed by Soviet bureaucrats…and yet has somehow come to be viewed by party leaders and the mainstream media as being decisive and definitive.

We really should be better than this sort of crass, unprincipled corruption…don’tchathink?

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on April 8, 2016 5:44 AM.

The best explanation of Houston you'll see today was the previous entry in this blog.

Syria: War doesn't determine who's right, only who and what's left is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 6.0.8