The Democratic Party has railed for seven years against a system where the winner of the popular vote did not actually become president. Yet in its own system, the winner of the popular vote is currently behind.
In 2000, Vice President Al Gore received the most votes in the national election: 51,003,926; which was abour 544,000 more votes than his opponent, George W. Bush. But Bush won that election, prima facie, because of the allocation of electoral votes; because he came out ahead among states that had a higher proportion of electoral votes, he won (by a mere one vote). This is, of course, why Florida's outcome was so contentious. A single state going blue would have led to a Gore win.
This is, as many have noted, and hardly for the first time in history, rather undemocratic. How can we say we are a democracy, i.e. a government decided by the people, where majority rules, if a majority of people is not enough to decide who rules? Is the Electoral College -- a catch-all term for the total of Presidential Electors sent from each state and chosen based on each state's separate Presidential election -- outdated? That was the word from many Democrats after the final turnout of the 2000 election: our candidate got the most votes, so he should have won.
How then can the Democratic establishment possibly excuse itself from its own rigged system of selecting a party nominee? 20% of the total delegates -- the party equivalent of electors -- are independent, and not selected or pledged based on the popular vote. These "superdelegates" are politicians; mostly established politicians -- likely old-guard party favorites, who in turn, likely prefer old-guard party favorites.
Right now, Hillary Clinton has a stunning majority of the 800 superdelegates: 170 to Obama's 100. This puts HRC ahead of Obama with a total delegate win of 59%.
But Obama is winning the popular vote, with 45% of elected delegates versus Hillary's 35%. But Obama is currently behind in overall count, because of the superdelegates.
One can hope that the remaining unpledged superdelegates might watch the outcomes of remaining popular votes, and pledge their support with the will of the people. But it's clear that the party establishment does not necessarily agree with the party proletariat. Revisit 2004, where Howard Dean was the outstanding popular favorite, but the party establishment in, its caucuses, chose Kerry instead.
This year is turning out a bit different, with Dem-leaning voters in caucus states being informed about their state parties' special limited-access process of picking the candidate, and an increased non-establishment turnout will hopefully result, pushing the will of the people further against the party echelon.
But the final question is: How can the Democratic Party rail against the unjust electoral system that allow the popular winner to lose, and yet have no excuse for its own superdelegate system that allows the popular winner to lose?