Monday, March 17, 2008

Superdelicate & Undemocratic

Many Obama supporters would like to rewrite the Democratic party rules. Their candidate holds a narrow lead over Hillary Clinton in the delegate count at this point, so they look to the superdelegates to simply affirm the voice of the people. This self-serving spin on the issue is understandable, but if the superdelegates are to be constrained in this manner they could logically be removed from the equation entirely. Their whole reason for existence would be null and void, and they most certainly would not be super.

In fact, the rules the Democrats adopted were expressly designed to inject a non-democratic element into the selection process. At some point in the early 1980's the Democrats designed a formula that awarded 20% of the vote to party bigwigs, thinking that they would help guide the nomination with their superior vision of the long-term goals. It was supposed to avoid another nasty convention battle like the one that erupted in Chicago in 1968. Of course, they did not have better luck in the Eighties, nominating spectacular losers like Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis.

The Democrats seem to be headed for yet another trainwreck in 2008. The vote is a matter of some delicacy for the superdelegates, who would need a compelling reason to overturn popular opinion on the matter, lest they anger the supporters of the losing candidate. Still, they are not bound to the democratic result by any law. Dr Stanley Fish blogged about the issue recently at the NYTimes. The next time an Obamamaniac complains about "undemocratic" rules, whip this list out:

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.

No comments: