In as many days, I've received an e-mail apiece from DFA and MoveOn condemning the superdelegate system and demanding that "party insiders" not "overturn the will of the people." In other words, they want some major grassroots pressure to build to force the superdelegates to fall in line behind, I guess, whichever of the two candidates wins the plurality of the pledged delegates when all is said and done.
The language both e-mails use is very us against them, outsiders vs. insiders, casting the villain as those liberal bogeymen, the "establishment" and the "elite." First from DFA:
Super-delegates are a contingent of almost 900 elected officials, party insiders, and current DNC members and they aren't required to follow the voters. In fact, after every Democrat has voted and the last allocated delegates are assigned, super-delegates have the power to overturn the popular vote and crown a different winner.That's right, if super-delegates don't like who you choose to be our nominee, they can overturn your vote. We can't let that happen. Our nominee must be chosen by Democratic voters, not by back room deals of the party elite.
And from MoveOn:
Who are the superdelegates? Most of them aren't elected--they're state party chairs, retired politicians, and Democratic insiders. They control 40% of the votes needed to win the nomination.3 The reason they exist: to make sure the party establishment approves of the nominee.
I find this a bit amusing, I have to say. First of all, what the e-mails fail to state is that many superdelegates are party activists, who've moved up from the grassroots into positions either within the party or in local Democratic groups. Many of these so-called "insiders" are exactly the sort of people we'd like to be the ones to break a tie at the convention. At the same time, I grant MoveOn and DFA that many are not.
But second of all, let's be serious, no one really thinks these two groups would be launching these campaigns if Hillary Clinton were currently ahead in pledged delegates, do they? These are clearly proxy Obama campaigns at work, which is fine, certainly DFA and MoveOn are entitled to do so, it's just the self-righteous tone they use that I find somewhat offensive and, frankly, manipulative.
I mean, if they were really concerned about fulfilling "the will of the people" at the convention, wouldn't DFA and MoveOn be petitioning the DNC to reinstate Florida and Michigan's delegates to give voice to the millions of people who voted in those states? And really, are DFA and MoveOn suggesting that Senator Barbara Boxer, who had announced well in advance of the California primary that she would be casting her superdelegate vote for the candidate who won her state's primary, i.e. based on the true will of the people she represents, should be forced to switch her vote to Barack Obama simply because he has a few more pledged delegates than Clinton? Senator Boxer's casting her vote for Clinton at the convention, regardless of pledged delegate totals, to me, fulfills what DFA and MoveOn claim they are fighting for, i.e. small d democracy, representing the true will of the people. Whose will is Barbara Boxer compelled to represent at the convention if not Californians'?
But it's not quite this simple. Senator Ted Kennedy came out early for Barack Obama and his state went for Clinton. I wouldn't expect him to be compelled to switch his vote to Clinton either because his state voted for her or because she ultimately ended up with more pledged delegates than Obama; if Kennedy stated his passionate support for Obama early and the system gives him a vote at the convention, why should he be forced to switch for any reason, ditto Senator John Kerry and Governor Deval Patrick?
So, what's the answer? Well, clearly it's not simple. Do I think the superdelegate system is messed up? Yeah, and it may have to be done away with or revised now that it's seen the light of day thanks to this year's primaries, but I do think that if DFA and MoveOn were really concerned with superdelegates' representing the "will of the people" they'd actually be urging elected officials to pledge to vote for the candidate who wins his or her state or district. As for those superdelegates who aren't elected, well, unless one of the candidates actually wins the needed majority of pledged delegates, I don't see how anyone can be compelled to cast the vote that the system allows them to cast for anyone other than whomever their conscience tells them is the best candidate.
Update [by Todd Beeton]:This very dynamic is on display in this CNN interview with '92 Clinton campaign manager David Wilhelm who recently came out in support of Barack Obama. Asked if he would be compelled to switch his superdelegate vote to Clinton if either his home state of Ohio votes for Clinton or if she ends up with more pledged delegates...well, let's just say he trips over himself a bit (h/t TPM.)
|
|
|
Permalink :: 126 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
