In response to jobanger’s In Defense Of The Democratic Party’s Delegate Process
The delegate process works for the good of the party, and is not unfair to any Democratic candidate — and it does not need to be changed. Also, giving the super delegates an automatic slot at the national convention opens up more slots for rank-and-file Democrats to be able to go to the convention…
(quoting Kevin Kelton at examiner.com)
…So Democrats, stop trying to change the rules mid-game. If you don’t trust your own Democratic senator or congressman to have a single delegate vote out of the 4,765 at the Convention, then you aren’t a Democrat.
– jobsanger, April 5, 2016
What an awful case for the superdelegates.
If the Sanders supporters’ argument is that the system is designed to support the establishment, then pointing out that the superdelegates are composed of establishment politicians only helps their point.
Obama’s victory over Clinton does not mean that nothing is wrong with the system.
Lines like “In short, they know this stuff far better than the average once-every-four-years primary voter” and “The presidency is not a popularity contest” are exactly the sorts of condescension that people concerned about the democratic process expect to hear from the establishment.
That only a few (dozen) superdelegates are lobbyists does not mean that they are not a problem.
Kelton even ends by accusing liberals of not really being Democrats. That’s really not how Democrats should be treating such a substantial and liberal portion of their base.
I don’t even disagree with the central argument for the superdelegates: that they are the people with actual experience in politics and that popularity isn’t everything. But this article as a whole is just fuel for the fire of those who want a more purely democratic system.
Ryan can also be found at Secular Ethics, a site devoted to the application of reason to ethical behavior.