Why superdelegates should be a thing of the past
Okay, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz may not be going out of her way to personally nudge Bernie off the democratic ticket. I suppose its only ironic that as the head of the Democratic national committee, Wasserman-Schultz comes off like she’s actually stifling the democratic process. In a world where 2,383 delegates win you the nomination and 712 of those can come on the backs the all-mighty super delegates — maybe friends or people feeling external pressure to support the poster child of the moment - a party will waste energy on itself.
This is just one of the problems that super delegates pose for the voting process. Others issues, not for this paper, include: disillusionment with country aka patriotism, lack of voter turnout and what i’ll call “team morale”.
Staunch enemy to many Wisconsonites (wikipedia)
I’m used to getting frustrated with republicans like Scott Walker in my home state for the sketchy plots they use to get their agenda across (never mind the actual agenda). Now it feels like the DNC is doing the same - squashing voter power in favor of a “higher” plan that only the powerful could devise.
The excuse that the DNC is doing this to protect constituents from a crazy populist person becoming the party’s candidate is a stretch. Its like the type of “watching out for” that rental car companies do when they offer insurance. Its not watching out for, its playing me for a friend when i’m really just a fool to get your own agenda (or, honeydicking).
Right now, those powerful are standing between lots (potentially more than half, potentially less) of democratic voters and a populist candidate, but I don’t think he’s crazy, and I don’t want national fear-mongering to get in the way of my candidate.
By looking to the republican race, its understandable why some people would want to roll the way of security and protection of voters from themselves, but is it worth it?
Lets look at the republicans for an example for a thought experiment.
Say somebody like the Donald - bona fide racist, flame-throwing capitalist, populist - wins the presidency at the end of the day and makes political things happen that voters really don’t like - offensive, bullying, hurtful things. It would be nice if voters had the power to do something about that. Are democrats supposed to look back at the DNC for the next move? Wouldn’t it be more interesting and sustainable to move in a popular way (like millions of people are good at) to make change?
It seems like in that hypothetical where voters have un-checked power to vote, if those people made a choice that millions later regret, voters might feel the consequences of their inputs, learn from mistakes, and also feel inspired to use their power in democracy to change it (word association: helicopter parenting).
The current 2-party system is set up in a way that forces curvy candidates like Sanders and Trump into the box of either 1 or 2. Nader and those before him have shown that a 3rd party is unviable. Outsiders have no choice but to assimilate to party standards. This means that anybody outsider-ish with a shot at the party nomination faces a croney-ist hurdle.
When a respectable person like WA governor, Democratic SUPERDELEGATE, Jay Inslee, gets in-between me and my candidate, I can’t help but feel like both Jay and I lose. I should feel less powerful than i rightfully should, and Jay Inslee should feel bad as a person standing against nearly 73% of his constituents.
Does being a stubborn Clinton-supporting superdelegate compromise Jay Inslee’s otherwise good record or nah? (wikipedia)
Why should Jay Inslee and other super delegates worry about nominating the more well-connected democrat when their all-important constituents have spoken?
Its not wrong that the DNC has a tie-breaker in effect, though when its populist vs party stalwart head to head in a close battle, its more obvious exactly what kind of tie breaker we’ve got here.













