It is statistically certain that the superdelegates now have to decide the Democratic primary. It would seem that we're doomed to watch a divisive and self-destructive fight over them all the way to the convention. But think outside the box. There's a better solution:
Disenfranchise the superdelegates entirely, ASAP.
The results are simple. The only ones left for the candidates to campaign for are the voters of the remaining states. No arguing, no spin, no backroom deals, no delaying, no wishy-washy endorsements, and no (justifiable) whining. Just hard and democratic numbers, and a candidate chosen probably sooner and definitely by a more fair process than we have now.
Go on, tell me that the superdelegates somehow deserve to decide the most energetic primary in living memory. I dare you.
Previously, I diaried on ways that we could end the primary. I proposed two things - forcing the superdelegates of states that had already voted to declare the support, and thus tighten up the statistics, and forcing the candidates to focus on McCain rather than each other, to bolster the party. I got minimal feedback (se la vie).
And then the underlying meaning of the first proposal hit me. The superdelegates could resolve the situation, but they won't. They're politicians. Bold stands are not in their nature. It was pretty much inevitable that most would wait until they saw the way the wind was blowing. With a relatively close popular vote, that meant that the superdelegates would stay unpledged. But more significantly, that means that superdelegates are the main reason this charade is dragging on. There is no uncertainty and indecision in the regular delegates - every one of them has been cast right on schedule. The indecisive and constantly-in-play superdelegates give the process more degrees of freedom and thus more failure modes, and crucially delays virtually all meaningful decisions. Yet everyone is so busy trying to guess their next move nobody seems to notice or comment on this failing (nobody I've seen, anyway).
Where they heck did these guys come from anyway? Wikipedia recounts the origin of superdelegates. In a nutshell: In 1968 the Democratic party implemented changes to make the convention less subject to control by party leaders. After McGovern and Carter, who were perceived as weak choices, the DNC leadership effectively reversed that policy in 1982 by creating the superdelegates.
In other words, they are a blatantly undemocratic measure that mainly backs beltway insiders because the DNC thought you, the voter, are not to be trusted with such an important decision as picking a candidate. It was a fine deal until they had a primary the voters really cared about. Now they are faced with the unattractive proposition of voting against a large body of energized voters, possibly even against the popular vote. That they declare support publicly just makes things worse, since it's that much easier for others to exercise influence over them.
So let's rectify the situation. Unlike my previous proposals, this one is comparatively easy to enact. The blogosphere floats the idea and leans on the DNC to take action. The DNC sees an opportunity, takes a vote, and bows to public pressure. The statistics snap into crystal-clear focus and we can get on with the real campaign.
"But" you say, "why would the DNC leadership part themselves from this power they so desired?" Easy, with great power comes great responsibility, and politicians hate responsibility. Now that they have been called upon to exercise it they are reluctant and justifiably worried about the potential backlash of their very public choice. By passing the buck to the people, they spare themselves the inevitable blame they would receive by actually exercising their vote. In fact, they would probably get kudos for making the process more democratic. Only the true believers of the losing candidate would object, and frankly if they'd rather their candidate was chosen undemocratically than gracefully admit defeat in a fair-and-square contest, who cares.
"Wait just a minute" you say, "that would be changing rules mid-stream. That's not fair" That's very disingenuous of you to say, since I'm guessing the real reason for you saying that is that your candidate would be hurt by that. Regardless I will address your point. You're wrong. It is fair. It's far more fair that the current system where a mere 795 party insiders control 20% of the decision, and since the current system is flexible enough to entertain changing the rules midstream for Florida and Michigan (which should have never been left out in the first place, and which you were belatedly arguing to include) it is surely flexible enough to entertain this little proposal. It doesn't even require an official change of the rules - at minimum it just requires that all superdelegates abstain.
The only catch is that they would have to make sure it looked like they weren't just doing it to favor the candidate trailing in the popular polls. There's only one way to do that - make the change permanent, and make a big deal about it being the right thing to do. Dean should come right out and publicly say "Superdelegates were a undemocratic idea from an earlier era, and only now do we see just what a bad idea it was. Fortunately we are fixing it by unseating the superdelegates permanently."
We would get our candidate sooner. The process would be more democratic and less subject to corruption. Fox News/The Republicans would have less opportunity to take pot shots at us. And most crucially, we could have a result nobody could question, perhaps even restoring a little grace and civility to the result. It just makes sense.
P.S.: While I'm on the subject, there's still the matter of Florida and Michigan, which by being left out of the process only make the process look undemocratic and leaves wiggle room for shameless opportunistic wheedling. The situation must be taken care of. Frankly it's too late to have a revote - the logistics and fairness of the process makes it untenable, and seating delegates according to the original "vote" would be ridiculous. But denying the people some sort of representation at the convention will only bring ill will. Fortunately they already have it - state elected officials. I would put it to a vote of the democratic members of the Michigan and Florida Houses of Representatives (the state ones). City councils and the like would be even finer grained but are too haphazard, so state reps it is. Unlike the current superdelegates the ballots would be secret, and as state legislators they are more removed from Washington, making political pressure that much harder. They'd be free to vote their conscience, and in so doing exercise their duty as representatives. The key here is choosing a body of elected representatives with as few constituents as possible.
It's a little like superdelegates, but it's the most fair solution I can come up with under the situation. And we could settle these states in a reasonably fair manner within a week. Here's a full breakdown of the reps:
State |
State Reps |
State Sen |
Gov |
US Reps |
US Sen |
---|
Michigan | 58D/52R | 17D/21R | D | 6D/9R | 2D/0R |
Florida | 43D/77R | 14D/26R | R | 9D/16R | 1D/1R |
Note: minor edits for typos