I just had an email exchange with a regional director of the Democratic Party that has me a little disturbed -- but I'm not sure whether or not I should be!
I won't say his name or where I live because I don't want to identify him. Suffice it to say I'm in California. I don't know this man too well, but I've seen him at several MoveOn-sponsored events, and I am on his mailing list.
His email was in response to the MoveOn petition to urge the "superdelegates" to not overturn the wishes of the voters. He didn't like it, and his critique took the form of a response to each part of the MoveOn email. I'll put the MoveOn statements in normal type and his response in italics -- and my own comments (if any) in bold.
Dear MoveOn member, You've probably heard about the "superdelegates" who could end up deciding the Democratic nominee.
There is no such thing as a "superdelegate". That is just a nickname. They are actually called unpledged delegates, and there are several varieties. They do not "decide" anything. They each get one vote, just the same as everyone else.
( More beyond the break ...)
Who are the superdelegates? Most of them aren't elected—they're state party chairs, retired politicians, and Democratic insiders.
False – Almost all of them are elected in one way or another. State party chairs are elected. Congressional representatives are elected. US senators are elected. State governors are elected. Members of the DNC are elected.
They control 40% of the votes needed to win the nomination.
False – there are 4,049 convention delegates, of which 796 are unpledged. That equals 19.65% of the total number of delegates.
I think he's right on that one; I think MoveOn got the percentage wrong.
The reason they exist: to make sure the party establishment approves of the nominee.
False – The reason they exist is because the Party operates 24 hours a day. Not just once every four years. District level delegates are elected on one day in a four year period. But almost all of the unpledged delegates are there for the entire four year period.
Well ... that's why they exist as party operatives, but not why they exist as unpledged delegates.
Congressional representatives, US Senators, and state governors are the legislative and executive parts of the party and deserve a vote. That includes past presidents, past vice presidents, past speakers of the House and majority leaders, and past senate majority leaders.
Members of the DNC are elected in each of the 50 states. They run the bulk of the party operations, including traveling to four DNC meetings per year. They also deserve a vote.
Well .. He's not exactly denying that they exist to approve of the nominee. But he seems to be saying they SHOULD get to do that because they work so hard for the party.
This is about democracy, pure and simple. Whoever you support, we can all agree the Democratic nominee should be decided by Democratic voters.
We can all agree that the rules have been in place for a long time. And we can agree that everyone knew what the rules were before they decided to run for president. And we can agree that everyone should abide by the rules.
In the long run, the Democratic Party needs to reconsider this undemocratic system, but for this election, we need the superdelegates to do the right thing.
If the Party needs to reconsider the convention makeup, there are procedures to do that. Trying to change the rules in the middle of an election is not the way.
The Democratic Party must be democratic. The superdelegates should let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama, then support the people's choice.
All delegates should abide by the rules. District level delegates were able to decide for themselves which candidate they supported prior to running for a seat at the convention. Unpledged delegates are just as entitled to their private decision as any other delegate. They should vote for the person they believe will make the best nominee for the Party, and the best President of the United States.
OK ... am I the only one who finds this a little disturbing? He seems totally oblivious to the undemocratic nature of the superdelegate process and is only concerned that the "rules" are followed.
Here's the email I sent to him in reply:
I think MoveOn is concerned that even if Barack Obama wins the delegates assigned from the primaries and caucuses, Hillary Clinton will win the nomination because of the superdelegates.
If this happens, it will be a disaster for the Democratic party, even if it is perfectly legitimate from a procedural point of view. There will be a firestorm of protest -- take my word for it. Go to DailyKos and do a search on superdelegates, and check out the responses to this possibility. There are people who are saying they will not vote in November. Some say they will even quit the Democratic party. Believe me, the Democrats do NOT want to lose these supporters, who are the base of the party.
I may even leave the party if this happens, and I've been a Democrat all my life. Plus, we are signing up many new people who are new to the process and voted for Barack Obama. What message will it send to them if, in spite their candidate garnering the most popular votes, a different candidate wins because of some arcane party rules? They will likely be discouraged and may drop out of the process altogether. Do we want to lose these idealistic new voters?
This is quite different from if Hillary wins the majority of the delegates in the primary/caucus process. Democrats will accept that -- what they won't accept is if she wins SOLELY because of the superdelegates. Trust me ... we don't want this to happen!
.. and here's what I got in return:
Is your solution for the Democratic Party to violate it's [sic] own bylaws and bow to the threats of people like these?
In Nevada, Hillary got the most popular votes, but Obama got more delegates because of arcane party rules. Will Obama cede these delegates to Hillary? He shouldn't have to because everyone knew the rules before they ran for president.
If these rules need to be changed, then people like yourself can offer testimony to the DNC rules committee to change the bylaws for 2012.
Well that really ticked me off, especially the "people like these" (US!) part. Here's my final response:
"People like these" are the heart of the party! These are the "netroots", who played a very large role in getting Democrats elected in '06. The energy and passion of these people is a GREAT resource, which should not be squandered!
I do believe the rules need to be changed for 2012 -- but we can't wait that long.
Lest you feel I am exaggerating the feelings of Democrats -- check out these letters to the editor in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/...
With all due respect -- I think you party insiders can lose a little perspective and get wrapped up in your own world of party procedures and rules. I understand and respect that you have devoted many hours of your lives to the working for the party, and I do appreciate it. But that should not give you the right to supercede the will of the rank and file voters. That's what democracy is all about! It's not about party insiders -- it's about the people, whom the party insiders are supposed to represent!
I agree with the first letter writer in the NY Times letters to the editor -- after all the trickery and flim-flammery of the last several elections, voters are FED UP with slick maneuvering of this sort!
(And by the way, I ALSO disagree with the way the votes were divvied up in Nevada because of arcane party rules! I think Hillary should have gotten the most delegates.)
Am I wrong to be angry? I do appreciate the hard work people like him put into doing the "grunt" political work. And he is truly the nicest man in the world; I like him very much! But I have to admit I am disturbed at his "blind spot" here! How can he not be concerned about the "superdelegates" overriding the will of the people??