The Looming Super Delegate Nightmare

Let me play out a nightmare scenario for the Democrats. Hillary Clinton wins most of the big states yet to come. Barack Obama wins most of the other states yet to come. Barack Obama winds up with slightly more delegates as well as slightly more real total votes from the voters overall. Yet, neither has enough delegates to clinch the nomination. Then, at the convention, a backroom deal hands the nomination to one or the other. Either way, millions of Democratic voters will be disenfranchised and the party will turn to chaos.

This nightmare situation may happen because our system for electing each party's nominee is without any rhyme or reason and frankly resembles a banana republic more than a beacon of a democracy that is supposed to be an example for the rest of the world. This is not partisan. The Republicans have just as screwy a system as the Democrats, but theirs hasn't played out in this nightmare fashion. In fact, in many ways, the Republicans have a system even more likely to create a disaster. In the Republican primary, some states have a winner take all primary and other have a proportional representation primary. This allows for an even more nightmare scenario where one candidate dominates the primary season but wins the wrong combination of states and gets beaten by another candidate that wins far fewer states and votes, but wins predominantly those states that are winner take all, and cruises to the nomination even though they have no business doing so.

As it stands now, the most likely scenario has neither candidate getting enough normal candidates going into the convention to clinch the nomination. That means that the nominee will be decided in part by super delegates, party insiders who get to vote as they please. Let's look at just how lopsided that is. In my state, Illinois, just over two million people voted and chose 183 delegates. That means each voted accounted for .0000915 delegates. That means a super delegate, like John Kerry, has 10928 times as much influence in deciding the nominee as an average voter. The fastest way to create cynicism and disinterest in the process is to create the perception that certain folks have significantly more power and influence in deciding elections than common folks...or SUPER DELEGATES.

Going into the convention, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will have equally compelling cases to make that they are the rightful nominee. Hillary Clinton will likely have won most of the large states, and most of the states at the end of the primary season. Barack Obama will have won the most states, the most delegates, and the most votes. (The biggest nightmare is if Clinton caught up in the votes but not the delegates) Which arguement you think is best is likely to depend on who you support. Either way, the loser's voters will likely feel disenfranchised, as though their votes didn't count. Hillary's base comes from the machine of the Democratic party. What a disaster if those voters feel disenfranchised. Obama's base is an influx of new African American and young voters. What a disaster if a generation of those two felt the Democratic party was disenfranchising them.

There is no easy solution here and that's because the inclusion of 800 super delegates has created a situation in which the voters won't decide a clear winner. The winner of the campaign primary is a matter of perception. That perception is largely framed by which candidate you actually support. If things play out the way it appears, we will have no clear winner going into the primary and the nominee will be chosen in some backroom deal. That is the sort of thing that happens in a banana republic not in a democracy that is supposed to be a model for others. It is happening because each party, for whatever reason, decided to make the autocratic super delegates such a large part of their nominating process.