I think it's worth discussing just what superdelegates were designed to do. Who are they supposed to benefit, and at whose detriment? What phenomenon are they supposed to offset? Do you really want to offset it?
It's very interesting to me that everyone can see the trainwreck up ahead in Denver due primarily to these superdelegates, and no one seems to have any handy rationale for their existence in the first place. And yet, unless I'm missing something, no one else has bothered to ask what the hell they're for.
My God, is Howard Dean the only person in the entire party who's trying to head this thing off? If Obama gets more pledged delegates but the establishment rallies to Clinton and she wins on superdelegates, which is emerging as the most likely scenario, there will be something between widespread demoralization of the party faithful, and rioting in the streets. The damage that would be dealt to the credibility of our electoral system would be enormous, especially coming just 8 years off of Bush v. Gore. Can you imagine seeing people turn out in record numbers all over the country, shattering all previous records in nearly every state in the union, only to have the winner squelched at the convention by the party leadership?
1 comment:
Amen! It's bad enough that we have to deal with the undemocratic electoral college, but to let random party bosses choose who gets to be our nominee? That's over the top. Now, to get the party establishment to listen!
Post a Comment