Most of us are aware that in the primary phase of the presidential election process, the Democratic Party utilizes both pledged delegates and “superdelegates.” Candidates earn pledged delegates through the state election and caucus processes, but superdelegates cannot be earned through the popular vote. Senator Bernie Sanders’ voters are frustrated because most superdelegates had committed to vote for Secretary Hillary Clinton even before the primary election and caucus processes had begun. This, however, is not the way the superdelegates are supposed to operate.
Even before the candidate roster was filled, many –If not most– superdelegates had decided whom to support, and the vast majority are supporting Clinton. Most owe her political favors for campaign appearances, fundraisers, or other political debts. And some are simply dedicated fans. That’s why Clinton has a massive superdelegate lead over Sanders and has had it from the beginning. But by committing themselves to Clinton, these party establishment loyalists are abrogating their role as superdelegates. Perhaps they need a refresher on why superdelegates even exist.
There is a reason the Democratic Party has superdelegates, and it is arguably rational. The party felt stung back in 1972 when populist Senator George McGovern defeated former Vice President Hubert Humphrey in a turbulent battle for the nomination, followed by several public relations misfortunes and targeting by the now infamous Richard Nixon “dirty tricks” campaign (which later led to Nixon’s Watergate impeachment). In the general election, McGovern suffered a resounding defeat. Democrats resolved to establish a firewall against future grassroots exuberance for “unelectable” candidates. Superdelegates from each state would be selected by the party mainstream to buffer the effects of populism v. electability. These superdelegates would have the political acumen and good sense to distinguish between idealism and practicality and ensure the most electable candidate was on the November Democratic ballot. That, at least, was the intent.
If electability is superdelegates’ reason for being, they all should still be uncommitted. Their sole criterion, given the rationale for their creation, should be the apparent electability of the candidates on convention night. In virtually every state-by-state and national head-to-head poll comparing Sanders to Clinton against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, Sanders wins, and he usually wins big. Meanwhile, Clinton wins in those polls only by a small margin –or loses, both state-by-state and nationally. If superdelegates swing the nomination to Clinton at the Democratic convention, they will countervail their purpose and their mission.
It’s understandable why those loyal to Clinton or who feel indebted to her feel obligated to support her. But they need to find other ways to do that. Right now, they are wearing a different hat. The party has charged them to vote for electability.
Superdelegates, please do your job. Declare now that you are uncommitted because your duty as a superdelegate is to see that a Democrat is elected, and that despite your admiration for Secretary Clinton, you will carry out your mission to vote at the convention for the candidate you deem, at that time, to be most electable. Either that, or let the people decide and don’t vote at all.