Letters to the Editor
-
The problem with Shapiro's analysis
Walter Shapiro's analysis is flawed. The Democratic Party's process for election/selection of convention delegates is not at all "undemocratic" but the product of democracy in its usual chaotic form.
Consider the evolution of the process from the 1960s to the present. In 1960, Kennedy defeated Humphrey in West Virginia and Wisconsin, and that covered much of what was then the primary season. State and city party bosses controlled state delegations. By 1968, there were contested primaries in Indiana, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota and California. The bosses, however, still controlled the nomination.
The democratization of the process exploded in 1972 in a way that threatened to exclude numerous party 'leaders' from the convention; nobody was going to let that happen again.
What emerged was a system in which just about every registered Democrat had a shot at voting for a nominee, but around 20% of the convention votes would be cast by pre-selected delegates, including members of congress and of the national committee.
Shapiro criticizes the mixture of primaries and caucus as not being uniform. But uniformity ought not to be confused with democracy. Indeed, each state's party can handle the process its own way, so long as every party registrant can participate. Both procedures are democratic. The caucuses, which seem to Shapiro somehow less ideal, are actually extensions of the earliest town hall meetings, and invite dialogue and interaction more than television ad buys. This ought to be regarded as a good thing; direct primaries have some failings but to afford more people an easier chance to be heard.
I agree with Shapiro that 'super delegates' have a legitimate place in the process, but not because the votes in earlier primaries may be given less weight, as he suggests. It is fundamentally incorrect to relegate the election of early delegates to a kind of 'tracking poll.'
Every primary vote would be different if the date were changed. That's how it goes. Bush wouldn't get elected today even if he electronically rigged ten million votes, but it's too late to worry about that because the election of 2004 is over.
The delegates from Iowa and New Hampshire and Wisconsin and Texas have been chosen. They favor Obama. Unless one wants to eliminate delegates and conventions entirely – a really stupid idea – the total popular vote in primaries is not very relevant, but it, too favors Obama.
The only thing sustaining the Clinton campaign is the hope that she might damage Obama enough to shoehorn the nomination via mass support from nearly all 'super delegates.' Should she accomplish that, her nomination would be worthless because the party would be destroyed. Ancillary damage would be the loss of numerous congressional seats which the party at this point still hopes to win.
There is no doubt that the Democratic Party leadership, such as it is, is right now trying to figure out how to get Clinton to bow out. They'd better figure it out soon.