Tuesday, May 06, 2008
SuperdelegatesThe idea behind the superdelegates - that party leaders and elected officials should have a voice in the nominating process - makes some sense to me. These folks are pretty well-informed. They know the candidates. They understand electability and they have some skin in the game. Their judgment, independently considered and compiled, could help to steer the nomination to the best candidate - without breaking completely from a more democratic selection process.
We could have used their input back in February. Had they cast their ballots on Super Tuesday, we could have wrapped up the nominating process about the same time the GOP did. Had they committed their own ballots before the balloting in their own states closed, they could have avoided the current dilemna.
By letting these superdelegates linger and loiter, uncommitted into May and perhaps beyond, we have set our party up for a potentially disastrous process. Should these superdelegates exercise their own judgment in casting their ballots - as was intended from the start? If in so doing, they overturn the choice of a majority of the pledged delegates, will the Democrats who voted in primaries and caususes over the past 5 months not be incensed?
Should they set aside their prerogatives? Respect the primary and caucus results and merely ratify the selection of Mr Obama? Actually - I think this is the only option open.
Four years from now, let's not end up in the same place. Let's fix this.
Technorati Tags: Superdelegates, Democratic Nomination, Pocketful of Kryptonite
| +Save/Share | |
Links to this post:
No subject for immortal verse
That we who lived by honest dreams
Defend the bad against the worse."
-- Cecil Day-Lewis from Where Are The War Poets?
[Tip: Point cursor to any comment to see title of post being discussed.]
SEARCH THIS SITE
News & Media Links