Saturday, January 26, 2008

Superdelegates will Help Hillary Win

In the blow-by-blow account of the Democratic race for President, many pundits are ignoring the importance of superdelegates in the nominating process. Superdelegates are unelected and unaffected by primaries and caucuses and will comprise a voting bloc of almost one-third of the total at the Democratic Convention. They are primarily members of the Party establishment including Congresspeople, officials and other entrenched interests. These superdelegates favor Hillary overwhelmingly over the upstart campaign of Barack Obama.

How did this "undemocratic" situation develop? Well, initially, in rebellion to the process of picking a Presidential candidate in a "smoke-filled" back room, the Democratic Party moved almost exclusively to state primaries. The only problem: the Democratic base sometimes got a little carried away. For example, in 1972, they chose the liberal icon, George McGovern, who went down to a resounding defeat in the general election. After that debacle, the Party decided to place a check on public opinion by creating superdelegates.

Though some decry this situation, it's actually a good thing. Our Founding Fathers were always concerned about the "tyranny of the majority," the possibility of a demagogue coming to power. That's one reason why they formed the Senate and gave Senators six-year terms to avoid any mass-induced hysteria from Representatives in the House. Let's remember that sometimes direct elections, in and of themselves, fail to produce the best result. For example, the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections.

And sometimes you do need wiser, more experienced voices to exert some influence. So, while Barack Obama is dazzling us with his oratory, the Party elders, the superdelegates, may choose a more experienced candidate. This is beneficial for the Democratic Party and the country.