Melissa,
Over the past few weeks there’s been a growing conversation about the role of super-delegates in the tight race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Since it’s plausible that neither of them will have enough pledged delegates prior to the convention, party insiders may be the ultimate deciders of the Democratic nominee. Conventional wisdom suggests that such an outcome plays to the advantage of Hillary Clinton, whose deep political ties may win her an election despite having won fewer states and pledged delegates. If this happens, it will signal the end of the Democratic Party.
How hypocritical would it be for the DNC to complain about the Republicans stealing Florida in 2000 and then ignore the will of the people in 2008? How can they whisper about voter nullification in 2004 and allow party insiders to cancel out the votes of everyday people? At least Republicans steal the other party’s votes!
No longer will the party have the ostensible moral authority to complain about Republican oligarchy and anti-democratic power mongering. Also, many of the young cult members Obama supporters who are voting for the first time will become disillusioned with the process. More immediately, any candidate who wins a brokered election will be nothing more than a tackling dummy for John McCain in November.
Am I being hyperbolic about the dangers of a brokered election? Am I worrying too much about nothing? Will the super-delegates merely fall in line with the popular vote? Should they?
Marc
Marc Lamont Hill is Assistant Professor of Urban Education and American Studies at Temple University.
