Letters to the Editor
-
@Susan
Certainly, you're not the first to express that sentiment, and in most areas you cite I completely agree.
But I sympathize with the Superdelegates' plight a bit more than most (even as I question there reason to exist at all). If I were among the party elite and my vote counted more than everyone else's, I would consider that an awfully heavy burden to shoulder. My understanding of my obligation is simple: I could not be a party to installing as our nominee a candidate with fewer pledged delegates than the other candidate. That would render the primary system a sham. We may as well have just installed our nominee before it began.
If it was absolutely clear to me which candidate that would be, I would go public. Otherwise, I would wait until the entire public has voted. Even though I know this extended process is hurting us.
Yes, I understand that as a superdelegate I would have the power to thwart the popular will. But I remember those occasions when we have done so. And I remember the results. I remember the reforms that were put into place after 1968 to make the party more (small-d) democratic. And I remember the rollback of those reforms in 1980 that gave the party elites more power (including the creation of the superdelegates).
But I would reject any suggestion that I should thwart the popular will. The calculus is so simple it's hardly worth discussing. The only hope for a Democratic victory is a united party in the Fall. The only hope for a united party in the Fall is a candidate that has won the nomination, fairly and squarely, abiding by the agreed-upon rules, and without the assistance of backroom wheeling-and-dealing by the Party elite.
So get out there and drum up votes for your candidate. Whoever rolls into Denver with the most pledged delegates will win the nomination. If not - trust me - there will be hell to pay, and it will be far worse than simply losing a single election.