According to CNN, superdelegates are “delegates to the National Democratic Convention” who are “current or former elected officeholders and party officials,” who are free to choose a candidate and may change their mind if they so desire. Governer Phil Bredesen of Tennessee is one superdelegate who remains “very much uncommitted,” according to his press secretary, because “early in the process he doesn’t feel it’s necessary to weigh in.” While Bredesen remains relatively quiet, others have not. Sparks have already begun to fly within the party, indicating that the governor might find himself in the middle of a spectacular political struggle when he arrives at the DNC in August to cast his vote.
This is a divisive issue in the Democratic primary because of the close nature of the race. While Obama currently has more pledged delegates and a higher delegate count, Clinton has more superdelegates (different news organizations each cite different figures). Predictably, the Obama and Clinton camps have taken different sides on the issue. Obama’s campaign clearly fears that he will win the majority of delegates but lose in the Democratic National Convention because of Clinton’s support among superdelegates, which led chief strategist David Axelrod to say, “‘Superdelegates’ doesn't mean that they should leap over the will of the people in a single bound.” On the contrary, Hillary’s communications director Howard Wolfson told CNN that superdelegates "are supposed to vote their conscience." While both statements sound nice, it is clear that Obama and Clinton are on two very different sides here.
CNN reports that Lanny Davis, a Clinton supporter, decries that Obama "very ironically wants to change the rules of the game in the middle of the game." However, this election is no ordinary game, and I think that voters have every right to be concerned about the equity of this system. CNN says that “Democrats are largely agreed that the battle over delegates needs to be resolved without a sense that superdelegates … are making a decision that opposes what voters want. This raises an interesting question: what happens when the Democratic VIPs disagree with the popular nominee? This arguably took place earlier in the season in the Republican race, when Romney and Guiliani—arguably the establishment candidates—were soundly beaten by John McCain (and even Huckabee) who proved to be popular with voters, if not party bosses.
It is rather ironic that the Republicans are more democratic than the Democrats, but this seems to be taking place. According to the New York Times, Clinton’s camp currently dominates the inner workings of the Democratic establishment, which includes prominent members of Congress and the DNC. Obama’s superdelegate support comes from red states and swing states; and, interestingly, prominent political women such as Govs. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Chris Gregoire of Washington. Other prominent women such as Nancy Pelosi have declined to endorse either nominee. It seems to be the case that Hillary is depending on elite support rather than popular momentum—hardly a claim popular in the Democratic Party, or one that has been successful lately, especially if you look at Mitt Romney’s case.
Yet another complication in the issue has become evident: superdelegates can, and do, switch allegiance without penalty. Last week, according to the New York Times, influential African American leader Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, who had endorsed Clinton in October, shifted his support to Obama, declaring that he could “never, ever do anything to reverse the action” of his constituents. In addition, Rep. David Scott, also of Georgia, left the Clinton camp in the wake of Obama’s success in Georgia; both representatives cited his recent victories and his appeal across racial and geographic barriers. They’re not the only superdelegates formerly pledged to Clinton who are shifting camps, either. In addition, around 300 of the 795 superdelegates in the “elite electorate” are still undecided; as the New York Times notes, more than 100 come from states where Obama won handily—interestingly, most of them are men. These voters may swing the process later in either direction art any point in the primary cycle. Most are likely waiting for the de facto candidate to emerge before choosing a side. The ability of superdelegates to shift their preferences is troubling, as it reflects volatility in the election process that could lead to even more chaos. If they are simply following popular sentiment, why are this many superdelegates needed? At this point, with the number of undecided votes and their often changing allegiances, they are simply serving to muddy the political waters even further.
These undecided superdelegates are being heavily courted by both candidates, with Clinton especially pressing for commitments. As the New York Times wryly notes, “there are about 300 delegates who are enjoying almost as much if not more attention from the Obama and Clinton campaigns as, say, Wyoming, where caucuses on March 8 will choose a mere eight delegates.” The potential for an undemocratic outcome here is glaringly obvious and clearly concerns party leaders. As Bill Richardson notes, “I just think there are too many superdelegates and I don’t think party bosses and elected officials should have the say they’re given today,” and “If superdelegates decide this nomination, it’s going to look like big-shot politicians and fat-cats decided who should be president.” Even Democratic leaders acknowledge the distinct possibility of corruption in their party; Richardson’s candor is surprising. Another superdelegate, longtime Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, told CNN, “If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party.” Nancy Pelosi agreed, noting that, “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided,” and Gary Hart, a former senator and presidential candidate, proclaimed that the power of superdelegates “should be curtailed.”
So, is not consensus in the party about how exactly superdelegates should vote—with their district, their state, or their own views? If superdelegates vote with their states, some seem to think that the concept doesn’t seem to make much sense; why have so many superdelegates when they have no real power? However, most people are not worried that they have too little, but rather, they have too much power over voters—and there are legitimate reasons for this thinking. Some superdelegates seem to see themselves as paternalistic figures determined to save Democratic voters from themselves, which is a rather unappealing concept. According to an ally of Al Gore, “It could very likely take a group of senior party people, including Gore, to settle this, but the only way they can settle it is if they stay on the sidelines now.” Representative Clyburn, the House Whip from South Carolina and the highest ranking African American in Congress, stated: “If I were to only reflect my state, then that may not be good enough for a national candidate,” and as a result, “I think we ought to use our collective judgment to do what is in the best interests of our party.” This is a worrisome pattern of thinking because it gives certain Democrats exponentially more power than most citizens.
Whatever the outcome of the Democratic primary process, superdelegates seem to be serving the opposite of their function; they are causing fear and mistrust among voters, instead of helping to improve the primary process. It is ironic that the party that claims to represent the majority of the American public would allow political elites to make decisions for the rest of the country. It is fundamentally undemocratic to give the votes of prominent citizens more weight than their regular neighbors—something which should definitely alarm voters.
Comments