Hey, question. Did any of you out there ever get a chance to vote on whether superdelegates should exist? Because it’s a funny thing—I started voting before the Democratic Party decided that we ordinary people shouldn’t be entrusted to vote someone in during the primaries who doesn’t have sufficient “electability.” Apparently, they’ve actually never tilted a real election since then, but have abided by that quaint thing known as “the will of the people, expressed in their vote.” But I never got to vote on whether to have any people whose vote counts more than mine does.
It’s been argued that it might be time for the superdelegate system to meet what I think is its natural soulmate, the garbage can. The reason for this should be plain, and is argued here. That reason is that in any race where their voices would make a difference, “Either the superdelegates were going to vote with their constituency and risk countering their intended purpose or they were going to vote against their constituents and run the risk of ripping the party in two.”
That is, if you don’t ever use the superdelegate system to override the will of the people, there’s no point having superdelegates; but if you DO use it to override the will and the vote of the people, it “runs the risk of ripping the party in two.” I would add: “uh, yeah—plus, you’re overriding the will and the vote of the people. I.e., ‘democracy.’”
What in the almighty EFF-WORD do we have a superdelegate system for at all? I’ve seen it argued—apparently, in all seriousness—that it’s okay because we vote for a lot of the superdelegates (many of whom are elected officials), but A) I suspect exactly NONE of us elect them with an eye to whether they’ll become superdelegates, B) if it were put to a vote, I suspect exactly NONE of us would assent to such a system, and C) I do NOT vote for someone, even when it’s a candidate I love, intending for him or her to have even ONE vote more than I get. Not ONE vote more. Let alone the equivalent of millions of voters’ worth of votes, which each superdelegate is granted, just because they’re a party grandee.
And guess what! That same blog I quoted above, the “Either the superdelegates are going to vote with their constituency” one? It also mentions that the superdelegate system isn’t going to go away, because the vote to do away with it will be taken by, er… the superdelegates. In their words:
Will they [the superdelegates] be eliminated? No, because the Democratic Change Commission membership is about one-third superdelegate and the group the DCC will make recommendations to -- the Rules and Bylaws Committee -- is made up of DNC members who were also superdelegates.
WOW! That’s FANTASTIC, everybody! You know what that means? Sure you do! It means that a primary season, and therefore an election—who knows, perhaps one even this very year of 2016!--could be decided by the DNC, and by Bill Clinton. You know what? I voted for Bill Clinton, once upon a time; I liked him ever since (and still rather do); and back when Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was Hillary’s campaign head, in 2008, I didn’t mind her so much then either. But now? We KNOW who they’re voting for. They’re voting for Clinton. That’s fine. Give them their
ONE. VOTE.
Just like my one vote. ONE. You get ONE.
Do you want me to tell you how pissed I am going to be if superdelegates decide this election? (Or any election, for that matter?) And how pissed I actually am at this moment that a candidate like Sanders, dedicated to exposing corruption and anti-democratic tendencies in the Democratic Party hierarchy has to first ask permission from… the Democratic Party hierarchy? Who all may want to announce instead “sorry, even if the democratic vote is in favor of you, Mr. Sanders, we are going to award the crown to someone who plays ball and doesn’t talk about ‘rooting out corruption from the Party’ and all that jazz,” and who would SOMEHOW be legally allowed to do so?
There’s a LOT of talk around here about “if Hillary wins the primaries, I won’t vote for her.” I have never said anything to that but: “if she wins, I WILL vote for her,” except sometimes when I’ve added: “unless there are some superdelegate shenanigans.” Well you know what? If there are close calls, virtual ties or even Bernie wins, in the primaries, and it’s thrown for Hillary by superdelegates? I’m hardly going to spend any time or breath saying “no no, you guys! Don’t stay home! Come vote for Hillary! Even though she’s only won through a really cynical, corrupt rule by the sort of noble class that we thought we didn’t have in America!” How am I even going to pitch that to people, if the superdelegates should decide this race?
I want to vote for Hillary, if Bernie loses the primaries—in an honest counting of the democratic vote. Of the people. Meaning that my vote counts as much as yours, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s, or Bill Clinton’s. If Hillary gets 50.5% of the vote in Iowa, and Bernie 49.5%, and that’s repeated in each state, I will say “the people have spoken.” But if Hillary Clinton’s family ends up getting more of a vote than I get, then how am I supposed to rally ANYONE to vote for her, if she goes in for an undemocratic short-circuiting of the popular vote?
The superdelegate system is anti-democratic, and every single person here—even Hillary supporters, who stand to gain by it temporarily—should be agitating for its overthrow. If Bernie wins the popular vote, and this vote is overturned by the anti-democratic superdelegate vote, then we should tell Hillary, en masse, every single Bernie voter, that a condition of voting for her in the general is cleaning house and getting rid of the superdelegate system entirely.
In fact, we should all say that now, whether that happens or not.