Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Essentially Contested America

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Academic

: Essentially Contested America

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's SUPER-DELEGATES!

By Robert Justin Lipkin

ADVERTISEMENTS

The hallmark of American republican democracy is that sovereignty lies with the people. To ascertain the reflective will of the people certain filters are put in place, for example, federalism, and the separation of powers. Once the electorate's will passes through sm: the requisite filters, its word is final. Smoke-filled rooms or an aristocracy of self-appointed bosses are anathema to republican democracy. How then can we explain the frenetic chatter on cable television and the Internet over the role of "super-delegates" in this year's race for the presidency? Which anti-democratic political party would dare to create such an abomination? The Republicans for sure! No doubt! . . . No? Their version of "super-delegates" pales in comparison to the real culprit here, none other than "the Democratic Party [whose] nominating process is at odds with grass-roots democracy. . . . Voters don't choose the 842 unpledged "super-delegates" who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination. . . . The category includes Democratic governors and members of Congress, former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, retired congressional leaders such as Dick Gephardt, and all Democratic National Committee members, some of whom are appointed by party chairman Howard Dean." What's the point of these super-delegates? These uncommitted delegates have the prerogative to vote for whomever they please. And if they change their mind so be it. What's the point of this mechanism in the Democratic Party's quest to retake the White House?

In theory, these super-delegates are supposed to check the results of the caucuses and primaries, just in case the people pick the "wrong" delegates who are in turn pledged to a candidate these "enlightened" Party bosses disdain. You know the drill, something along the lines of the Electoral College. We vote for electors, not directly for presidential candidates, and one of the purposes of the Electoral College is to provide a safety mechanism to protect the people from themselves. The creation of this category of political bosses is designed "to give elected officials more clout in the nominating process [and] constitute a prize worth twice as much as the state of California." This end-run around the people's delegates flies in the face of republican democracy and looks more like a sordid aristocratic cadre of powerful politicos paying lip-service to the idea of representative democracy.

If the Democratic Party permits the votes of super-delegates to be decisive in selecting either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, when one clearly has the majority of elected delegates, it will be nothing more than picking a candidate in a

"smoke filled room." Shades of Boss Tweed. No cheap cigars perhaps, but the deliberations will be the same. Our Constitution requires one person one vote. The Democrats' system of super-delegates gives more power to Party bosses not one of whom ran in a primary or caucus. Such arrogance shows contempt toward the people. It implicitly contends that Party leaders are more capable than the electorate of choosing a presidential candidate. If this betrayal of the people occurs, progressive Democrats should seriously consider sitting on their hands this election. How can they vote for a nominee who was selected by unelected delegates when the people have already spoken? Can we tolerate the Court selecting George W. Bush in the 2000 election, the first cause of our present predicament, and then the Democratic Party following suit? Which word in "Democratic Party" does the Democratic Party not understand?

Credit for first Image
Credit for Second Image

Full post as published by Essentially Contested America on February 13, 2008 (boomark / email).