Superdelegates Mar Democratic Process
Laura Carpenter
Issue date: 4/1/08 Section: Editorial & Opinion
By now, it was believed we
would have both our Republican
and Democratic nominees. But as
they say, it's not over till the fat
lady sings; or in this case, until
Obama or Clinton concedes. More
and more, it seems, it will come
down to the superdelegates and
possibly some shady, backroom
deal that doesn't involve average
voters. The superdelegate system,
an underhanded way for political
bigwigs to move their choice to
nominee, steals the democratic
process from the people.
Senator Hillary Clinton defeated
Barack Obama in the
Democratic Party's presidential
primaries in Texas and Ohio. Her
performance in these two crucial
contests revitalized her campaign
after a stunning consecutive 12
defeats, and prolonged the race
for the party's nomination. She
also won Rhode Island, while
Senator Obama won the state of
Vermont. Obama holds 1621 delegates,
while Clinton has 1479
delegates. What makes this race
even more interesting is that the
superdelegates will play a major
role as predicted last month.
Clinton actually leads in this
case with 237 superdelegates to
Obama's 208. Some voters fear
this design of choosing a nominee
might drive the course of this
election towards Clinton. Others
believe that if Barack wins the
popular vote, Clinton's superdelegates
will jump ship and support
Obama. Amazingly, no one talks
about why we have a superdelegate
system in the first place. Do
the party leaders believe we are
not smart enough to pick our own
nominee? Do they think we'll
screw it up and perhaps pick a
candidate we actually believe in
and not a politics-as-usual insider?
Whether Americans support
Clinton or Obama, the nomination
must go the way the voters
choose.
Not only can superdelegates
vote anyway they like, without
regard to the people, there may
be other ways the candidates can
affect these delegates. The political
would have both our Republican
and Democratic nominees. But as
they say, it's not over till the fat
lady sings; or in this case, until
Obama or Clinton concedes. More
and more, it seems, it will come
down to the superdelegates and
possibly some shady, backroom
deal that doesn't involve average
voters. The superdelegate system,
an underhanded way for political
bigwigs to move their choice to
nominee, steals the democratic
process from the people.
Senator Hillary Clinton defeated
Barack Obama in the
Democratic Party's presidential
primaries in Texas and Ohio. Her
performance in these two crucial
contests revitalized her campaign
after a stunning consecutive 12
defeats, and prolonged the race
for the party's nomination. She
also won Rhode Island, while
Senator Obama won the state of
Vermont. Obama holds 1621 delegates,
while Clinton has 1479
delegates. What makes this race
even more interesting is that the
superdelegates will play a major
role as predicted last month.
Clinton actually leads in this
case with 237 superdelegates to
Obama's 208. Some voters fear
this design of choosing a nominee
might drive the course of this
election towards Clinton. Others
believe that if Barack wins the
popular vote, Clinton's superdelegates
will jump ship and support
Obama. Amazingly, no one talks
about why we have a superdelegate
system in the first place. Do
the party leaders believe we are
not smart enough to pick our own
nominee? Do they think we'll
screw it up and perhaps pick a
candidate we actually believe in
and not a politics-as-usual insider?
Whether Americans support
Clinton or Obama, the nomination
must go the way the voters
choose.
Not only can superdelegates
vote anyway they like, without
regard to the people, there may
be other ways the candidates can
affect these delegates. The political
Be the first to comment on this story