by Les Thompson

Created on: May 18, 2008

At first glance, I determined that super delegates are a bad idea.That the candidates are asked to present their approaches and positions in primaries and caucuses are the only objective way to select the nominee of the party. What is the purpose of the time and money spent to traverse the country, convince the voters in each state, ask them to vote, and then have their decision trumped by a preferred few? Is not that approach a suggestion that the voters are not capable of arriving at a sensible conclusion? Indeed, in a New York Times article, a few months ago, Ms. Geraldine Ferraro, a past Vice Presidential candidate of the Democratic party argued that since, in some cases, only fifteen percent of those registered

in the party voted in the primaries, that was not evidence of who the voters preferred and who ultimately should be nominated. But then, why have primaries, or caucuses, at all? Now, I am not so sure.

As the campaign has progressed, and there has been much debate about what the role of the super delegates should be, there seems to be two distinct but, in my mind, equally flawed arguments. As the rules provide, the super delegate is free to exercise his vote as he, or she, pleases. Assuming the votes of the super delegates are exercised in a way that overturns the will of the voters, the question must again be raised, why have primaries at all? On the other hand, if the super delegates were just to defer to the wishes of the voters, why have them at all? Flaws and all, now, I have come to the rationalization that the super delegate should be free to exercise his or vote as conscience dictates. I will try and justify my conclusion.

Because the super delegates are the elected officials and are more active participants in the affairs of the party, they have a keen sense of what may be better for success in an election. While each elected delegate may be more concerned with his or her precinct, county, or state, and its own parochial interest, the super delegate is able to look at the process in a more dispassionate and impartial way, and should be able to conclude whether candidate A or B is a better national opponent of the nominee of the other party. Because, he, or she, is more conversant with the issues of the day, he, or she, is more likely to make an objective selection. And the current campaign has shown how effective and potent their voices can be.

It may be argued, without successful contradiction, that when Senator Kennedy endorsed Senator Obama,

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>