Geraldine Ferraro has a fascinating op-ed today in the NYT that's worth a read. She manages to roll two hotly-contested debates we've been having into one poorly-stated argument. She addresses the role of superdelegates (or is that automatic delegates?), and the fate of the Florida and Michigan primaries. The logic is just amazing. Here's the link:
Ferraro's editorial
Geraldine Farraro starts by explaining why superdelegates were introduced, giving a history of the early '80's, when the Democratic party was in disarray. She drops some names and states why we should care about her opinion thus:
In 1982, we tried to remedy some of the party’s internal problems by creating the Hunt Commission, which reformed the way the party selects its presidential nominees. Because I was then the vice chairwoman of the House Democratic Caucus, Tip O’Neill, the speaker of the House, appointed me as his representative to the commission. The commission considered several reforms, but one of the most significant was the creation of superdelegates, the reform in which I was most involved.
What was the solution that the commission came up with?
Democrats had to figure out a way to unify our party. What better way, we reasoned, than to get elected officials involved in writing the platform, sitting on the credentials committee and helping to write the rules that the party would play by?
She claims the process worked, starting in 1984. It may have provided some party unity, but it certainly has had little impact on getting Democrats elected to the presidency. The Dems have won twice and lost five times.
Ferraro then states her case for the role of the superdelegates. They should lead the party, not simply follow the primary and caucus results.
[T]he delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.
If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate.
She also dismisses the open primaries and caucuses as not reflecting the best interest of the party, because those nasty Republicans and the independents can have a say in whom the Democrats should nominate. They may in fact be subverting the best interest of the Democratic party, she implies.
It's important to note that Ferraro is a Hillary supporter, but in excellent editorial style, she only lets this be known after setting up her argument for the leadership role of superdelegates.
Then the editorial makes an about-face and tackles the problem of Florida and Michican. She turns their "disenfranchisement" against those who want superdelegates to follow the will of the primary and caucus voters.
Standing up for the voices of grassroots Democrats in Florida and Michigan would prove the integrity of the superdelegate-bashers. The people of those states surely don’t deserve to be disenfranchised simply because the leaders of their state parties brought them to the polls on a day that had not been endorsed by the leaders of our national party — a slight the voters might not easily forget in November.
Sounds like a great argument to me. But wait, didn't Florida and Michigan break party rules? Doesn't that matter? No, if it helps Hillary break the back of the party to get the nomination. There are no rules for how superdelegates should vote, and there shouldn't be. However, the party needs to show some discipline with respect to Michigan and Florida, or the Democrats don't deserve to have a president in the White House in January.