Vox populi, vox Dei

For those who don't know, during this primary season, the presidential candidates are running to win delegates. Much like the Electoral College, each state carries a certain number of delegates, and a presidential candidate wins their party's nomination when they acquire the necessary number of delegates (Democrats - 2,025; Republicans - 1,191). Specific to the Democratic Party are what are known as "superdelegates." A superdelegate is a party insider; someone who has considerable power and influence, many of them being current and former public office holders. Former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are superdelegates. Former presidential candidate Walter Mondale is a superdelegate. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a superdelegate. You get the idea. The Democratic Party has just fewer than 800 superdelegates.

If the Democratic presidential campaign gets to the national convention and neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama have won the necessary 2,025 delegates to secure the nomination, then the superdelegates will decide who receives the nomination. Some superdelegates have already pledged to support a certain candidate, while others have not. This creates a possible serious controversy, however, and it is this: what happens if the superdelegates decide to support the candidate who did not have the popular support of the voters? For example, if, at the end of the primaries, 12 million people have voted for Senator Obama, and 11 million for Senator Clinton, but neither has reached the magic delegate number of 2,025, then enough superdelegates could line-up behind Senator Clinton to give her the nomination, effectively reversing the will of the people.

First of all, I think that the Electoral College has outlasted it's usefulness and should be abolished; elections for President of the United States are the only elections left that don't use a straight popular vote. I understand that the constitutional framers didn't trust the American people, but with all the advances that we have had in education, technology, and information availability, it is time to give the voters the full power. I also understand and respect the current arguments for keeping the Electoral College in place, but here's the truth: if that happened in our 2000 presidential election happened in any other country, it would be considered by the United States Government to be a coup d'etat.

So, building off of my above point-of-view, I don't think that 800 special members of the Democratic Party should be able to have the collective power to reverse the decisions of the voters. One person, one vote is how it should be. But more importantly, I also don't think that the party would be stupid enough to let these people go against the majority. The Republican Party is in a very fragile state right now: they are finishing up 8 years of what many conservatives feel is betrayal by President Bush, and their presumptive nominee is John McCain, whom many conservatives have a strong dislike for. I think that the GOP is currently going through an unofficial restructuring. However, if the Democratic Party allowed the superdelegates to reverse the primary popular vote, I don't think there would be a restructuring -- I think there would be destruction. I think that there would be a (proverbial) civil war in the party, which would definitely not recover in time for the general election, and maybe not at all.

Vox populi, vox Dei.