Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton supporter, recently wrote a New York Times article arguing for the independence of the superdelegates.
Before addressing her arguments, some added history to her piece:
-1984 Super-delegates chose Mondale-Ferraro over Gary Hart ( remember his sex scandal?)
-In 1988, Dukkakis led in pledged delegates and Rev. Jesse Jackson had accumulated roughly one thousand delegates from the primaries. Prior to ceding the nomination, he brokered a deal called Rule 13B that allowed delegates to be proportionately awarded whenever a candidate obtained at least 15% of the vote, going forward.
Ms. Ferraro is correct when she states that the caucuses are not fully representative of the democratic electorate. The caucuses do tend to cater to the most fervent party activists. The superdelegates coupled with rule 13B, act as safeguards to prevent extreme left activists from nominating undesirable candidates doomed to fail in the general election, while providing them with a platform. Superdelegates are supposed to be a buffer to irrational political activism, not become King and Queen makers. However, no one expected two dynamic and highly qualified candidates in the same year, thus the conundrum.
Ms. Ferraro neglects to mention that prior to Tuesday, Sen. Obama had won 11 straight victories encompassing both caucuses and primaries. His campaign recently eclipsed the 1 million donor milestone and attracted countless of young voters who have never participated in an election. The sinister vote that she alludes to in her article may in fact be Obama converts who are tired of the partisanship. She must make the case for the independence of the superdelegates since it is mathematically impossible for Clinton to garner enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination, regardless of the outcome in the remaining states. She will try to make the case that by winning larger blue states, she deserves the nomination. That is an empty argument, the candidate with the most pledged delegates and a lead in the popular vote should be the nominee.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Superdelegates should not decide the nominee
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Let's be frank about "proxy" sytems like the electoral college, delegate and superdelegate systems. The electoral college was instituted during the days of intellectual condescension and the technological vacuum - when the powers that be didn't think that "regular folk" were informed enough to make rational decisions. And because of the lack of technology and basic skills (literacy, writing, etc.), that was true, to a degree.
But times have changed DRASTICALLY, so that today, even the most illiterate of a person PASSIVELY (without having to take ANY sort of initiative) gets quite a bit of information through television and radio, billboards and candidates coming to stump in their town, so that they probably have 10 times more information and are less likely to make an "irrational", uninformed decision than that same person would have had and made X number of years ago.
(And, quite frankly, though the SuperDelegate proxy system is relatively recent, it also shows a complete lack of trust in the people to do the right thing behind that polling curtain, and therefore still reeks of intellectual condescension and paternalism.)
We can't only think about the effect that these proxy systems have on current elections (I heard a pundit counter an attack on the current SuperDelegate system by saying "Well, this is the system that we have"), but must put these systems in their proper historical perspective, and take note of the fact that the chasm between the self-described intellectually superior and the "uninformed peons" that gave rise to these systems in the first place - insofar as the amount of information necessary to make a rational, political decision - has narrowed significantly.
Yeah, sure changing our current voting system would be quite a feat - politically, economically and technologically. Studies would need to be done, technology would need to be piloted and tested, and billions of dollars would have to be committed to move towards a truly democratic, suffrage system. But it's in no way IMpossible. There just needs to be the political will to facilitate the process, and get the job done.
Call me an 'irrational, extreme left-wing activist", but I think we have a tendency in this country to over-intellectualize things in the name of democracy and, in the process, hold on too tightly to the antiquated systems that keep control of these issues in the hands of a select, undemocratically anointed few.
It's paternalistic and anti-Democratic, and I think that we can't be afraid to step back, put all of this into perspective, and call it what it really is.
Post a Comment