Superdelegate Dilemma

There are so many people up in arms about the structuring within the Democratic Party that gives superdelegates a vote for the next President. Let’s be frank, it wouldn’t really be an issue if there was an obvious nominee, but since we are stuck with a very questionable outcome… poof…we have controversy.

We cannot do away with superdelegates, at least this go round, because the structure was pre-arranged. This has worked no problem for how many years? (Hint: since before I was born) So now we are faced with two questions: How should the Democratic National Committee resolve this dilemma?, and, Do we want to continue with a convention structure that gives superdelegates a vote for a Presidential nominee?

Addressing the question of how the DNC should resolve the current dilemma, keeping in mind that superdelegates will still have a vote, there are many options and theories out there. Personally, I would like to see the DNC offer Florida and Wisconsin an opportunity to recast their votes in caucus and thus recognizing their delegates at the Convention. FL and WI should not have their previous election count, because they knew they scheduled the election dates in opposition of the DNC rules there would be repercussions and they would lose their delegates. To allow those votes to count now would be unfair and set a terrible precedent for the next Presidential election.

Why is it unfair? For one, not all the candidates listed themselves on the ballot (campaign-wise a stupid move) because all the candidates pledged not to campaign in those states. To count those votes is unfair to all the candidates including those who have already withdrawn from the race. It is also unfair to the voters in the States that followed the rules. Our state governments or state Democratic Party followed the rules for fear of penalty. Why should FL and WI get everything they wanted after breaking the rules just because there happens to a questions of whom the nominee will be? I say if they want a say give them the option to caucus. That still penalizes them while giving them delegates and prevents future problems with the primary lineup. Personally, I feel it is important to give the voters in those states a chance to be heard because no one’s vote should be silenced (but it happens when you break the rules or fill your ballot wrong).

Will that direction fix the problem concerning superdelegates? Unlikely. The DNC and the two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, will have to sit down and negotiate. A floor vote at the August convention will only fracture the party. Many voters will feel disillusioned with the party and we will likely lose some as voters for a very long time. We cannot afford that! The best for the future of our party would be for the candidates to come to an agreement.

As for the continuation of the superdelegates within the Democratic Party process, I have a question for you: Are you involved with the Democratic Party? This does not mean donating money or casting your vote on election day. This means donating time and energy to building the party including elected positions on local central committees, attending state conventions, walking precincts, organizing community events, phonebanking, etc. If you have never done any of the above for the party, not a candidate, then you probably have not been involved with the Democratic Party. Regularly I hear someone complaining about the government etc. Immediately I ask that person if s/he voted. If not, then my response is “you chose not to vote and silence your voice in so doing you gave up your legitimate right to complain”. So now I say to those who are complaining about superdelegates, if you are not involved with the Democratic Party then you are choosing to stay silent so stop you’re whining and do something about it. I know the Sonoma County Democratic Central Committee is always looking for members and alternates. There is a link to their website from our site under links.