B-Sides: Long Live the Superdelegates

On Edit: I call this a "B-side" b/c it's just a leftover thing I started writing but never got around to solidifying or smoothing out. I have a bunch of these things lying around on my hard drive.

I was digging around my hard drive and noticed a piece I wrote for the campus newspaper that I never actually submitted. It was a response to some claptrap about the Democratic primary campaign.
----------
I often write for the Gettysburgian under the heading “Going Global.” There, I try to take a measured approach to an international issue of some import. Oftentimes, I read my pieces in the paper and wonder if anyone will actually know which side I’m on.

Here though, I was driven to write by a piece in the 2/28 issue of the Gettysburgian. “For Democracy.” The author invited people to write in who know more about it than he does or disagree with him. I do not know more about democracy and the nominating process than he does, but I do disagree with him.

I respect Serfass’ reservations about the delegate selection process and the use of demographic parameters therein. The core of his argument is, as he states it, a candidate should not “be picked in a smoke-filled room by people” who were not elected.

My question is: why not?

I think that there are three essential components to a fair election:

1. A free press: the press should be allowed to report or cover any issues, within the confines of libel law;
2. Electoral safeguards: the government’s sole responsibility in an election is to ensure a fair process where anyone who wants to vote can vote once;
3. Options.

The options in most democracies come from political parties. The primary function of political parties is to win elections.

So, what gives us the right to pick the standard-bearer of a party?

The parties should have the right to determine their nominee in any way they deem suitable. They are better able to determine the direction they want to go than we are. They are also far better able to assess the skills of given candidates than we are. The ability to tolerate the modern campaign process has little relationship to how well suited a candidate is to be president, other than to prove that a candidate has an enormous desire to be president and an enormous ability to tolerate the mundane.

Moreover, the system is designed to create political dishonesty. Campaigns usually consist of running to the wins during the nominating process, and then tacking towards the center in the general election. Is this really an ideal, democratic system?

Think that such a system would lead to ideologues constantly being nominated? Abraham Lincoln was a moderate among the candidates for the Republican nomination in 1860. Wendell Wilkie and Thomas Dewey, Republican nominees in the 1940s, were both to the left of Robert Taft, who, even as “Mr. Republican,” never managed to get on a national ticket.

More empowered, the parties would factor electability into their selection process. Figures like Pat Buchanan and Dennis Kucinich would never win a party nomination, because of their perceived inelectability.

My overall point is, if the Democrats think that balancing their delegates demographically helps them towards their goal of electing candidates, I have no problem with it. The superdelegates, to me, are an excellent safeguard: the party can pick for itself. My problem is that they do not have enough power, and the power they do have is under assault by moralists demanding that the party obey “the will of the people.”

But really, who are the people? It depends on each state. In some states, it’s the number of people who were able to caucus after work, and didn’t have to work the night shift or watch their kids after work. In other states, it’s anyone who wants to vote, Republicans, Democrats, whoever. In other states, it’s a combination of one party and “independent” voters who are allowed to vote on one side. In other states, it’s just the members of the party. Is that really a good measure of “the people” or “the party?” Without a uniform standard to measure "the people", arguing about the "will of the people" lacks force.

I would like to see two things: the parties reassert control over the process, and more people presenting the case against binding primaries and caucuses. Imposing a nominee on a party is a false right, and it is certainly not undemocratic if that “right” were taken away.

A far better way to empower people would be to support measures like instant runoff voting, and proportional representation in Congress, in order to jumpstart third parties. But dictating to the parties is a bad idea, and I support anything the parties do to attempt to regain some control over the process.

So, long live the superdelegates. May they be granted more authority with time.