Power To The People?

August 28th of 2008 marks the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Denver. It is on this day that the democratic party will name its next nominee for President of The United States of America. Traditionally, the identity of the nominee is not in question by this late date and the convention amounts to little more than a party rally used to generate excitement and funds for the general election. This year things could be very different.

With what seems like an interminable primary race between candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, we have reached a point where it is a near impossibility that either candidate will win the required number of pledged delegates to guarantee their nomination. This reality means that the specter of a brokered convention looms ominously over all of us. If neither candidate has won the required number of pledged delegates prior to the convention then the delegate votes at the convention, typically more ceremonial than anything else, will take on a great deal of importance.

There are two types of delegates; pledged delegates which are determined by the votes of the general electorate (the people) in the nationwide state primaries and caucuses, and superdelegates which number over 700 and are given to elected officials and other party insiders and may be pledged to either candidate at the discretion of the superdelegate.

As of now, Barack Obama has what should be an insurmountable lead. With only 12 states left to vote, Obama has won nearly twice as many states. He has won the majority of the popular vote. And he has a triple-digit lead in pledged delegates. Even his, once large, deficit of superdelegates has been shrinking over the last month or two. And the inclusion of potential Florida and Michigan revotes probably wouldn't change anything dramatically. With these statistics one could safely assume that if Obama maintains his leads in states won, popular vote, and pledged delegates through the end of the primary season, then the remaining unpledged superdelgates would fall into line in support of the candidate that the people have chosen, right?

Well, not so fast. As any of you out there who even passively follow the news should know these unpledged superdelegates could still swing the nomination to Clinton's favor. Because they are bound by no rules stating that their vote must be influenced by any factor beyond their personal opinion of whom the candidate should be, the allotment of these delegates continues to be in question. Thus, there is still the chance that the voices of the American people will be subjugated by the handful of party insiders that are still yet to endorse.

Let's assume though, for just a moment, that the remaining superdelegates decide to go with the American people and endorse the candidate who has earned the lead by the end of the primary season. In that case there is no chance that our votes might be rendered meaningless, right? Well, that is the general consensus. Or at least that is what most of America thought until Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Newsweek the other day.

During the interview Clinton was asked "How can you win the nomination when the math looks so bleak for you?" Her response:

"It doesn't look bleak at all. I have a very close race with Senator Obama. There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process."

So, if you can follow that, she is basically saying that even the pledged delegates, the ones that are allotted because of the way that the citizens of their respective states have voted, have the option to switch their support over to the other candidate. If you find this cynical assertion more than just a bit unsettling, you are not alone.

Whether the losing candidate at the end of primary season, most likely Clinton, was pushed over the top as a result of a majority of the superdelegates siding with them or as a result of the pledged delegates switching allegiance in defiance of the voters of their state, this would spell enormous problems for the democratic party, the American people in general, and the future of elections in the United States of America.

First of all, this result would cause an enormous fracture in the democratic party. Many potential democratic voters, myself amongst them, would cast their vote for John McCain or a third-party candidate such as Ralph Nader. Worse yet, many of those who would have voted will just stay at home. This segment includes many of the young voters and African-Americans who have been brought into the process as a result of their enthusiasm for the new brand of politics touted by Barack Obama. Many of these people have not chosen to vote in the past and would simply continue along that path if Clinton were to take the nomination against the will of the general electorate.

In regard to how this may affect the future of elections in the United States, after an incident like this how would elected officials be able to encourage people to come out and vote in the future? So many Americans already say "Why should I vote? It's not like my vote really counts anyway?" How could one, in good conscience, answer this question in a way that encouraged people to come back out and vote again? For all intents and purposes a nominee who is decided by superdelegates, or worse, pledged delegates who chose to switch sides would be an affirmation of people's claims that their votes did not count. This would be the most egregious case of voter disenfranchisement on the books. Is that really what the democratic party wants as their legacy; the party that proved that the voices of the people really don't matter? I don't think so. But, it doesn't seem that Hillary Clinton has ruled out this possibility.

Lastly, and of greatest possible importance, is the potential fallout that could come as a result of the scenario mentioned above. If the DNC decides to steal the nomination away from the candidate whom the majority of the people have thrown their support behind, a very real possibility is that there will be widespread demonstrations, protests, and marches across the country on August 28. These gatherings will be filled with citizens that feel frustrated, disenfranchised, marginalized, and even helpless as a result of their realization that their voices are not, in fact, being heard by party insiders and elected officials. To me, this could be a very dangerous recipe and one more thing that I don't think that Hillary Clinton or the democratic party would want to have on their consciences. Let's hope that if Obama maintains his leads, which is almost a mathematic certainty, Clinton and the democratic powers that be exercise the necessary amount of care, grace, and humility to let the voices of the American people be heard.

-Chris C. Davis
3/11/08