‘Super’ My Ass

The first time CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said “superdelegates,” I didn’t know exactly what to think. One image that came to mind was the Democratic Party’s version of a Harvard admissions booklet: a perfect mix of men, women, young adults, whites, blacks, Latinos, and Asians, each from a different state in our beautiful Union, who would represent the Party this summer on stage at the convention. Alternatively, I pictured a contest hosted by Howard Dean to choose which delegates looked best in “Superman” costumes, the winner of which would escort the Democratic nominee around Denver on Aug. 28.

Oh, how I wish.

Instead, superdelegates are Democratic bigwigs and elected officials. Totaling 796 people, they are composed of the entire Democratic Congress, all Democratic governors, some big-city mayors, high-ranking members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and various others whom I cannot pick out from the DNC’s lengthy rulebook.

In addition to superdelegates, there are not-so-super, regular “delegates.” These are the John Does and Jane Smiths whom Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been publicly battling for across the country. Votes are collected in Democratic caucuses and primaries and candidates are awarded “delegates” based on how many votes they receive. These delegates arrive in Denver on Aug. 28 and vote for either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton, depending on which candidate won their district. Whichever candidate receives at least 2,025 votes at the convention becomes the nominee.

Let’s break that number down: a magic majority of 2,025 means that there are 4,049 total votes, 3,253 of which are “delegates”—awarded by popular voting—and 796 of which are “superdelegates.” In most elections since 1972, the year that the Democratic nominating process began to be democratized, one candidate dominated the caucuses and primaries so much that superdelegates were irrelevant; a candidate could collect 2,025 votes at the convention just from delegates.

But in this ever-so-special year, every vote in Denver will count. As of today, Barack Obama has won 986 delegates, and Hillary Clinton 924, according to CNN. If Virginia, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Indiana vote as expected over the coming months, the margin will remain razor-thin and the nomination could be decided by how superdelegates vote. Democrats might even have a Bush-Gore disaster on their hands: Obama could win more regular delegates than Clinton, but because of Clinton’s close connections with superdelegates, she could win the nomination anyway.

When I asked the DNC about this situation, the organization declined to comment, and repeated attempts to contact the Obama and Clinton campaigns were ignored (What about the student vote, spokespeople?) The DNC is likely embarrassed that this wonderful and energizing primary, in which a record number of Democrats have voted, might be decided by the gut feelings of DNC officials, or by which Cabinet position a senator thinks he can get if Obama or Clinton moves into the White House. How un-Democratic.

What’s worse, the Democratic Party knows it’s un-Democratic. In 1968, after the ludicrous nomination of then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic Party reformed the selection process to give more “power to the people.” Unlike the past, when nominations were decided by the elites of the Democratic Party (think “superdelegates”), votes in the primaries and caucuses would actually receive their due. Hence 3,253 delegates and 796 superdelegates.

The question remains, however, why keep any superdelegates? Why should Howard Dean, who will cast his vote as Chairman of the DNC for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton based on his own inclinations, have the same power as a delegate from California who represents thousands of Democratic voters?

And what about Rule #5 of the delegate selection rulebook? (I may be the only person who has read this horribly long and boring document): “Discrimination on the basis of ‘status’ in Democratic Party affairs is prohibited.” Again, the DNC would not comment on the obvious hypocrisy between this rule and the existence of superdelegates, who are merely high-status Democrats.

I know that Howard Dean loves the Democratic Party, and that most other superdelegates only want the best for the Party. But what does it say when Party elites’ votes count so much more than the average voter’s? Moreover, I worry, maybe too cynically, about corruption in this process: What is to stop Senators Obama or Clinton from hinting at a Cabinet position in return for that last, tie-breaking superdelegate?

Democrats need to start e-mailing and calling the DNC to express their disappointment that this election could come down to the whims of superdelegates. There are many problems with this lengthy nominating process, but superdelegates are especially egregious, and more importantly, easily changeable. Democrats have until March 1 before the superdelegate selection process is finalized, and who knows, maybe Howard Dean will surprise the world again. Maybe he will further the Party’s move toward actually trusting “the people” in choosing its nominee and rid itself of superdelegates. That would be super.



Andrew D. Fine ’09 is a social studies concentrator in Eliot House. He was a Crimson associate editorial chair in 2007. His column appears regularly.