The closeness of recent presidential elections has resulted in a series of civics lessons for our nation. The subject in class right now appears to be superdelegates.
Simply put, superdelegates are power brokers in the Democratic Party. They are mostly current and former office holders and party officials who are free to vote for any candidate they wish. And, given that there are nearly 800 superdelegates in the Democratic Party this year, they will make up roughly one-fifth of the delegates at the Denver convention.
They very well could decide the party's nomination, and that thankfully has created criticism and scrutiny of the superdelegate process.
The Democratic presidential race between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois is far from decided. The difference in delegate count at the moment is razor thin, and no one seems to know the actual count. The numbers you'll find depend on the source. The Associated Press this morning was giving Obama a 25-delegate lead. Other news organizations will have different counts, as will the candidates' campaigns. That's because those counts usually include public commitments or speculation about the superdelegates' leanings.
The concern of critics of the system is that the winner of the "popular vote" in state primaries and caucuses - and hence the winner of the most committed delegates - could lose the nomination if enough superdelegates vote the other way.
Which is why superdelegates in the Democratic Party should vote according to the outcome of their states' primary or caucus. If superdelegates' votes determine an outcome different from what the majority of party voters nationwide decided, the power brokers will have named the Democratic presidential nominee, and not the people.
The power that superdelegates hold in the process is the reason why the Obama and Clinton campaigns are spending almost as much time appealing to those 800 people as they are the millions who are voting in primaries. It's an unsavory aspect to what, thus far, has been an intriguing campaign.
The Democratic Party has vacillated in the past 40 years in how much power it gives to its party leaders. After the 1968 convention, changes were made that diminished the power brokers' influence on the nomination. But after 1980s election, lost by Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, Democrats put the superdelegate system in place to give party leaders more say in the nomination.
The peril in that decision has become more obvious as the 2008 campaign has progressed. Hopefully, the people will determine the Democratic presidential nominee rather than the political insiders. Hopefully, when this election's over, the party will reconsider the wisdom of the superdelegate process.
Simply put, superdelegates are power brokers in the Democratic Party. They are mostly current and former office holders and party officials who are free to vote for any candidate they wish. And, given that there are nearly 800 superdelegates in the Democratic Party this year, they will make up roughly one-fifth of the delegates at the Denver convention.
They very well could decide the party's nomination, and that thankfully has created criticism and scrutiny of the superdelegate process.
The Democratic presidential race between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois is far from decided. The difference in delegate count at the moment is razor thin, and no one seems to know the actual count. The numbers you'll find depend on the source. The Associated Press this morning was giving Obama a 25-delegate lead. Other news organizations will have different counts, as will the candidates' campaigns. That's because those counts usually include public commitments or speculation about the superdelegates' leanings.
The concern of critics of the system is that the winner of the "popular vote" in state primaries and caucuses - and hence the winner of the most committed delegates - could lose the nomination if enough superdelegates vote the other way.
Which is why superdelegates in the Democratic Party should vote according to the outcome of their states' primary or caucus. If superdelegates' votes determine an outcome different from what the majority of party voters nationwide decided, the power brokers will have named the Democratic presidential nominee, and not the people.
The power that superdelegates hold in the process is the reason why the Obama and Clinton campaigns are spending almost as much time appealing to those 800 people as they are the millions who are voting in primaries. It's an unsavory aspect to what, thus far, has been an intriguing campaign.
The Democratic Party has vacillated in the past 40 years in how much power it gives to its party leaders. After the 1968 convention, changes were made that diminished the power brokers' influence on the nomination. But after 1980s election, lost by Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, Democrats put the superdelegate system in place to give party leaders more say in the nomination.
The peril in that decision has become more obvious as the 2008 campaign has progressed. Hopefully, the people will determine the Democratic presidential nominee rather than the political insiders. Hopefully, when this election's over, the party will reconsider the wisdom of the superdelegate process.
