Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
Bob Toad is correct in his statement that voting in a party primary is not a right. The Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, etc; they are by definition "parties," not mini-democracies. They are private clubs that have formed to pull-together the resources of their members to put forward the man (or woman) of their choice to run in the general election. There is nothing in the Constitution that constrains them to operate "democratically." In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution about political parties at all.
In a way, we should be thankful that we have primary elections and causcuses at all. Previously the party favorite was picked in the back rooms, not at the ballot boxes. They could decide the party nominee by coin flip, or nude mud-wrestling match, if they desired. The only reason why the major political parties have now partially embraced the concept of selecting party candidates by popular vote is because they sensed that if such a concession were not made -- to at least give the semblance of democracy -- then they risk a mass abandonment of the two party system and a disastrous loss of power. Even still, as a firewall, they created the concept of superdelegates, to maintain at least partial control of the process in the event of close races (both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have them).
There is an obvious potential pro of having superdelegates. Let's say something akin to our two party system existed in pre-Nazi Germany, with superdelegates ultimately being necessary to give a candidate the final push for the party nomination. Hitler most definitely would have the popular vote wrapped up, but the superdelegates might have recognized him for what he was and threw in with the Kaiser instead. The democratic process in that case would not be followed, but the undemocratic course would, as a result, have been best for the party, and for Germany. Superdelegates can theoretically be a check and balance against mob rule. It won't be the first undemocratic process at play in our implementation of democracy. The Senate was a specific construct of the Founding Fathers to protect us against mob rule (a body not simply answerable to the short-term wishes of the people, but also to the long-term interests of the country). The Founding Fathers didn't trust the people with pure democracy. In fact, they feared pure democracy. Don't even get me started on the Electoral College.
This is not to say that I advocate the superdelegate solution to establish a veneer of democracy to the primaries, while still maintaining party insider control. It is, fundamentally contradictory to the democratic process played out in the general election. And at this point, if either party thwarts the will of the majority and picks the candidate with the minority popular vote, then that will certainly be the end of that party. I don't have a quick and easy solution to this dilemma. My long run solution would be to undermine the all-encompassing power of the two-party system, and to make it possible for candidates to be viable without receiving the blessing of, or emerging from, the two major political parties. In my mind, that would be by instituting Instant Run-Off Voting, but that's a topic of another article.
Are Superdelegates Our Friends?
|
Posted By: www.MoronInCharge.com Posted on: Mar. 17, 2008 at 3:47 PM  6 Comments
|
5.0 / 5
Based on 2 ratings.
|
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Mar. 17, 2008 at 11:51:53 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Very good article I don't agree with you very often, but it would be great if we didn't have to go to a party where we really don't want to be, but we fill if we don't nobody will ever listen to us. Hopefully a leader will come around that has the intelligence to give strait and clear answers. A person that looks at world and says this is what we have to do and it is the right thing to do and does it. I think politics is a word that means lie, cheat do what ever it takes to get the power. If we ever find someone that can get it done right leave them in office till they decide to quit. The whole election process seems to tear are country apart more than it helps. I know what you are all going to say, but I never here of any elections for God right or wrong, tornado, earthquake what ever they always thank god and say at least I'm still alive. I really think they will go for this one. |
||
|
Mar. 18, 2008 at 09:46:07 AM
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by know it All on Mar. 17, 2008 at 11:51:53 PM]
know it All
Mar. 17, 2008 at 11:51:53 PM Very good article I don't agree with you very often, but it would be great if we didn't have to go to a party where we really don't want to be, but we fill if we don't nobody will ever listen to us. Hopefully a leader will come around... View this Comment Thanks KIA. Your last statement reminds me of a religious paradox. We send a prayer to God when good fortune befalls us, and we pray to God in our time of need. We pray for him to help us, and we pray to him when we feel he has neglected us. If he is blessed for everything good in our lives, why isn't he cursed when the bad stuff happens? As for keeping the good politicians until they decide to leave, it would be nice if we could trust those good politicians to remain good. There have been good kings, and there have been bad kings, but the bottom line is that our Founding Fathers got rid of kings altogether. The nice thing about a representative democracy with terms limits is that our leaders/representatives don't naturally receive our respect because of their position in office. They have to earn that respect each and every day. At least that's the way it should be. Danny Cruz often makes the statement that people on the left are hypocrites because they speak such mean and hurtful things about George Bush and Dick Cheney, while giving non-elected citizens like Jeff Farias and Scott Ritter a pass. It's almost too outrageous a statement to recognize the inherent outrageousness. A citizen who speaks out when they feel their country is wrong, and wants to fix it, is a patriot in all senses of the word. A politician that cannot be criticized is a tyrant. |
||
|
Mar. 18, 2008 at 10:08:21 AM
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by www.MoronInCharge.com on Mar. 18, 2008 at 09:46:07 AM]
www.MoronInCharge.com
Mar. 18, 2008 at 09:46:07 AM Thanks KIA. Your last statement reminds me of a religious paradox. We send a prayer to God when good fortune befalls us, and we pray to God in our time of need. We pray for him to help us, and we pray to him when we feel he has... View this Comment Well said MIC! It has been sad and very exhausting to read so many inflamatory comments on race. I myself am guilty of expressing my anger and frustration. I do want the dialog to be honest; this is one way to hopefully move past the history and move forward. This means that a black community which harbors such nasty attitudes should also be willing to change or accept us too. To continue regurgitating the past, and passing blame will not resolve the race issues or feelings deep inside most of us. It's time to move on from this angry talk and just accept where we are as a a society and try to heal from there. I do not believe that the superdelegates will be a factor in this race. I believe that the Democratic Party will unite for the good of our party and country. |
||
|
Mar. 18, 2008 at 10:15:50 AM
|
|
| Here is a question for the website peeps How many members you got now? ANd how many are active writers. |
||
|
Mar. 18, 2008 at 01:14:30 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| BUH-RAH-VOH, Mick! Your fine article and Fish's give us a context for understanding Mr. Toad's rant on the Superdelegate issue - particularly Fish's two final paragraphs! The Rules are the rules that will be followed for selecting the Democratic nominee - it's absurd to wish/think otherwise! The majority of Superdelegates are successful and seasoned Democratic politicians. As things stand today, the Superdelegates will swing the nomination! Last, because Superdelegates' votes are not constrained by any criterion, we're forced to bet on their judgement about what's best for the party (a Democratic victory in November) and the country (a Democratic victory in November)!
|
||
March 16, 2008, 7:05 pm
Memo to the Superdelegates: No Principles, Please
In my last column I said in an aside that there are no ethical issues in the controversy about the superdelegates to the Democratic convention. This is the not the view of media pundits who keep asking the question, “What is the right thing for the superdelegates to do?” — and then, more often than not, answering it by saying (as Time magazine editor Richard Stengel did in the Feb. 25th issue) that the superdelegates should follow the will of the majorities in their districts and their states, because to do otherwise would be undemocratic.
This is nonsense, but before I explain why I think so, a little background information might be in order.
First, who are the superdelegates? The answer to that question is found in Section 9 of the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention. (Note the word “rules.”) The superdelegates or, more precisely, unpledged delegates, are assembled state by state and include members of the Democratic National Committee, all Democratic congresspersons and senators, all Democratic governors, all former Democratic presidents, former vice presidents, former speakers of the House, former minority leaders and former chairs of the DNC, plus a number of “add-on” delegates selected by party leaders. Together these number almost 800 and constitute approximately 20 percent of those who can vote at the convention.
The problem is that as ex-officio and political appointees they have not been selected by popular vote, and therefore, the argument goes, they should not be allowed to thwart the will of the electorate by tipping the balance at the end of the nomination process. That would be undemocratic.
Yes, it would be, but that is exactly why the system was devised by party insiders in the first place. As political scientist Ron Becker has said, “The essential purpose of superdelegates is to maintain some control of the nominating process.” That control was lost in the McGovern reforms of the 1970s, and in reaction the party regulars came up with the the superdelegates scheme in the early ’80s.
Perhaps someday the pendulum will swing back in the other direction, but right now, those are the rules, and when the group NoSuperDelegates urges the DNC “to not seat the Super-Delegates . . . and instead nominate the candidate leading in the delegate count,” what it is really urging is the jettisoning of the rules because its members fear the outcome that following them might produce.
Of course, they don’t see it that way. They see themselves engaged in a noble cause: “We are urging Americans to simply stand up for what is right and let democracy work the way it’s intended to.”
Whose intention and whose democracy would that be? Not the founding fathers, who were more fearful of democracy in 1787 than the Democratic elders are today. James Madison complained in Federalist 10 that “measures are too often decided . . . by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” Democracies, he continued, have ever been “spectacles of turbulence and contention.”
Alexander Hamilton was even harsher in his judgment. Replying to the assertion that “pure democracy” would be “the most perfect government,” he declared, “no position is politics is more false” because “the ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government.” Indeed, he concluded, “their very character is tyranny.”
In saying such things, Madison and Hamilton continue a long tradition in which fear of the demos (often called “the mob”) informed a preference either for monarchy or for representative government, that is, government by a class of professional politicians who were presumed to be cooler and wiser heads, less swayed than the people by the passions of the moment.
In such a form of government, the more prestigious the office, the less the office holder is responsible or responsive to the mass of citizens. House members must face the voters every two years, and as a result they campaign perpetually and always have at least one eye on public opinion. Senators serve terms of six years and are relatively insulated from the pressure to react immediately to their constituents’ demands. In fact, until 1913 and the ratification of the 17th amendment, senators did not have to worry that much about their constituents at all, because they were elected by state legislatures. Only a few years ago, retiring Senator Zell Miller said that popular election of senators was a bad idea and that the 17th amendment should be repealed.
But of course it hasn’t been and isn’t likely to be, and those opposed to the independent exercise of power by superdelegates might say that they are a throwback to an earlier period of anti-democracy sentiment that we have long since moved beyond.
Not really. Anti-democratic elements are everywhere in our political system. The presidential veto is undemocratic. The rules governing filibusters and the closing off of debate are undemocratic. The procedural devices by means of which floor leaders or committee chairmen can prevent issues from coming to a vote are undemocratic. The fact that Rhode Island and California have two senators each is undemocratic. The appointment of senators by governors in the wake of a death or a resignation is undemocratic. The presidential line of succession is undemocratic. The fact that a vice president who has not been elected to the senate presides over it and can cast a deciding vote is undemocratic. Judicial review – the practice by which the Supreme Court invalidates laws passed by the people’s representatives – is undemocratic. (Legal theorists call it the “counter-majoritarian difficulty.”)
So whatever your view of the superdelegates may be – whether you regard them as counterweights to popular frenzy or as a paternalistic imposition by a bunch of old guys (and gals) – it can’t be said that their very existence is an affront to the workings of democracy, for large parts of this democracy work in just the way the superdelegates were intended to.
What does this tell us about what the superdelegtaes should do in the present situation? Not much. In fact there is no “should” – no sense of moral obligation – in the equation. By definition, they can do what they like. One could say that they should exercise political judgment but, given that they are political and not moral agents, that would be tautological. In this case, political judgment can go in any number of directions. A superdelegate might ask himself or herself, “Whom do I think would make the best president?” or “Whom do I think will be the best general election candidate?” or “Whose policy views are closest to mine?” or “With whom do I have a history of cordial and profitable interactions?” or “With whom am I more likely to have more influence?” or “Who is more likely to be friendly to my state or region?”
Any of these questions is an appropriate political question, and depending on the answer (or perhaps combination of answers) the nod might go either to Clinton or Obama. It would also be appropriate, but not morally obligatory, to ask, “What would be the effects if we superdelegates were to tip the balance in favor of the candidate who got fewer votes and/or won fewer delegates?” And if it were judged (again an empirical not a philosophical judgment) that the effects would be harmful – a victory in the general election might be imperiled – a vote for Obama would probably be in order (although that might change depending on what, if anything, happens in Michigan and Florida). As an analyst, rather than as a voter, I could live with any of these outcomes, as long as it was a genuinely political outcome, and not one based on principle.
Report Abuse