Superdelegates are elitist--why do Democrats use them more than Republicans?

civildisoBDence

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Mar-02-08 01:14 PM
Original message

Superdelegates are elitist--why do Democrats use them more than Republicans?

This is cross-posted at http://newsprism.wordpress.com">the Newsprism Blog.

Why Are Superdelegates More Prominent in the Democratic Party???

The so-called "superdelegates" in our nomination process account for about one-fifth of the delegates who will choose our nominee. Made up of elected officials, former office holders, and appointees, these 796 party apparatchiks are in no way beholden to the voters of their respective states.

The question: is the superdelegate system undemocratic?

The easy answer is, clearly, yes, at least a little bit. Superdelegates take power away from the people and concentrate it in the party hierarchy. For some history of the superdelegate system, check out Godfrey Hodgson's take at http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/democracy_power/america_world/superdelegates_election">OpenDemocracy.net.

In more broadly historical terms, the presidential electoral process is far more democratic now than it was when the Founders of the nation first designed our democratic republic. Benjamin Franklin, asked as he left the Constitutional Convention what kind of government had been created there, quipped, "A republic, if you can keep it."

We temper the passions and shortsightedness of the masses by keeping a fine balance between pure democracy, which Plato called "mob rule," and republicanism, in which the rule of law enforced by an elite insures the rights of all of the people despite the worst inclinations of the majority of the people. Slavery was as undemocratic an institution as could be imagined, but was supported by a majority of the people until Abraham Lincoln resolved to "form a more perfect union."

Neither democracy nor the Constitution is infallible. Both should be subject to enlightened revision. The question concerning the superdelegate system should not be, "is this undemocratic," but rather, "is it good for the party and the country?"

The Founders saw fit to leave the election of both the President and the Senate in the hands of the state legislatures, not the people, though all 50 states have ceded that power to the people. The Electoral College and the party system still act as more or less elitist buffers between the people and the highest offices in the land.

The superdelegate system is more democratic than what the Founders envisioned, but less democratic than the direct popular election of the president proposed by many Democrats, http://feinstein.senate.gov/05releases/r-electoral-college010605.htm">like Dianne Feinstein.

Is there such thing as a system that is too democratic? Democrats would generally say, "Of course not." Republicans would generally say, "Of course."

The irony is that the Republican Party uses a process that's far more democratic than the process used by the Democratic Party.

If anything needs to change, maybe it's this: the advocates of a purer democracy should adopt a system that more accurately reflects their Democratic philosophy, not that of the patrician protectors of the Republican elite.

You can follow the superdelegates nationally and in your state at the http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Superdelegate_Transparency_Project">Superdelegate Transparency Project.

http://www.newsprism.com">Newsprism