Several weeks ago we were presented with the surreal specter of two iconic figures from the civil rights movement battling each other in the name of “democracy.”
Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, wrote a letter in early February to the head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) demanding that the delegates “elected” by voters in the Michigan and Florida primaries be seated at the Democratic Convention. Otherwise, he argued, “millions of voters” would have their votes discounted, thus undermining the democratic process. A few days later Al Sharpton argued in his own letter to DNC chair Howard Dean, that it would be a “grave injustice” to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan. What’s going on here?
We are nearing the end game in the protracted struggle to determine who will be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president of the United States. The race is nearly even between Sens. Obama and Clinton, although, depending on who’s counting, Obama has a 100-plus delegate lead. Given the governing rules and the math, two things are crystal clear:
First, it will be difficult — though not impossible — for Sen. Clinton to close the gap by winning pledged delegates in the few remaining contests.
Second, and more important, neither candidate can reach the number needed, even if they won all the remaining contests. It would take an extremely unlikely series of landslide victories for one of the candidates to win outright. Thus, the Democratic party is faced with an ugly scenario of the election being resolved in a manner that is glaringly undemocratic.
One way of resolving this mess relies on the superdelegates—the unelected Democratic Party senior leaders who makeup 20 percent of the delegates to the convention–to make the final decision. In a way, this would be poetic justice for the party. Ever since the nomination of George McGovern as the party’s nominee in 1972, party officials have repeatedly attempted to change the rules so that the democratic process, the voices of ordinary people, would be less decisive in choosing the nominee.
Indeed, political scientist Nelson Polsby wrote a book two decades ago which was very specific on the issue. The rules needed to be changed, argued Polsby, to reduce the influence of “unreasonable” elements in the party such as newly empowered blacks and white women. Thus, the superdelegates were created as a check on the democratic process and black influence in particular. Should the superdelegates decide the nomination, the rigged process will work in the way it was originally intended. But it may also have the unintended effect of so enraging core constituencies that they boycott the general election.
A second scenario on how this mess gets “resolved” is that the process drags on to the convention in Denver; no candidate wins on the first ballot, and the convention becomes wide open as delegates are then free to vote for whomever they wish. This is a scenario the party wishes to avoid even more than the first. The Democratic Party would most likely emerge from the convention very badly splintered.
The Republicans would no doubt gleefully crow about the anti-democratic process that subverted the “will of the people,” resurrecting, with some justification, the hoary image of the smoked-filled rooms that used to epitomize the anti-democratic nature of the presidential nominating process.