Public Comment

In 1903, Wisconsin’s “Fighting” Bob La Follette organized the first primaries in the U.S. La Follette hated boss-controlled conventions. The aim of the primaries, he once said, is to remove the nomination from the hands of professionals. 

There were no superdelegates prior to the 1980s, when Walter Mondale, one of the early architects of the superdelegate system, repudiated La Follette’s democratic philosophy. 

With the explicit aim of preventing voter insurgencies, Mondale helped to create a block of unelected kingmakers drawn from the Washington establishment. Mondale was quite frank about his aims. In an editorial subtitled “Party Leaders, Not Voters, Should Do the Nominating,” Mondale wrote (New York Times, February 26, 1992): 

“The election is the business of the people. But the nomination is more properly the business of the Parties....The problem lies in the reforms that were supposed to open the nominating process. Party leaders have lost the power to screen candidates and select a nominee. The solution is to reduce the influence of the primaries and boost the influence of the party leaders....The superdelegate category established within the Democratic Party after 1984 allows some opportunity for this, but should be strengthened.” 

Should superdelegates overrule the majority will of the voters? That is the question that confronts the Democratic Party today. 

Independent Judgment 

Recently Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi said that superdelegates should respect the voters’ choice. In contrast, Senator Clinton argued that superdelegates should exercise “independent judgment.” 

What does Clinton mean by “independent judgment”? Consider, for a moment, judicial standards for determining an individual’s capacity for objectivity. Any prospective juror who has any dealings with a plaintiff or defendant is automatically disqualified from jury duty. A person who makes financial contributions to a judge in the midst of a trial commits a felony. 

The exchange of votes and favors is ongoing in politics. Over the years, like Senator Obama, Senator Clinton contributed thousands of dollars to members of the House and Senate, who are now superdelegates. Some delegates are close friends of the candidates. Clinton has organized dozens of lavish fund-raising parties for her allies in Washington, D.C. As her biographer, Sally Bedell Smith, wrote: “Hillary’s efforts...earned the gratitude of countless influential Democrats who could help with her political ambitions.” 

To be sure, many Democrats commend Hillary Clinton for her fund-raising, her indefatigable work in Washington. No one claims she is lazy. But to portray superdelegate beneficiaries as “independent” judges in the nominating process strains our credulity. Few politicians have the moral courage to be called a “Judas” in public. 

Superdelegates, in short, rarely exercise genuine independent judgment in the selection of a presidential nominee. What, after all, makes Washington incumbents wiser than the voters themselves? 

Ethical Issues around Superdelegates 

Finally, there are ethical issues regarding the Clinton position on superdelgate power. At every rally, at every major event, she appeals to voters as if their votes will become the deciding factor in the nomination. She does not tell them that superdelegates are—in her opinion—wiser than the cooks, taxi drivers, lawyers, technicians, nurses, and humble Americans to whom she appeals. Is it really ethical to appeal to Americans to vote, while making appeals behind the scenes to superdelegates to nullify those voters if they choose your opponent? 

To be sure, Senator Clinton certainly has a right to take Mondale’s elitist position on the role of superdelegates in the nominating process. Fine. But doesn’t she have an obligation to inform voters that their debates, their activism, their hopes and idealism—their participation in the primaries—may all be in vain? Why not just cancel the primaries, let superdelegates pick the nominee, and spare us the humiliation of yet another election overturned? 

Superdelegates chose Mondale in 1984, and Mondale was trounced. They chose a tank-riding Dukakis in 1988, and he too lost the election. 

A democratic nomination, based on the principles of Bob La Follette, is a precondition to victory in November. 

Paul Rockwell is a writer in Oakland.