Posted by
Andrews on Saturday, March 08, 2008 7:38:57 PM
I was just having a discussion with my mother about the possible actions of the superdelegates when an interesting question came up.
My mother had decided to watch Chris Matthews (always good for a laugh I suppose), and discussion on the show turned to the Democrat nomination. Matthews made some joke about the person with the most votes winning the nomination, leading me to point out to my mother that the whole superdelegate process had actually short circuited the popular selection process. She disagreed, saying that it would lead to bad consequences when a delegate from a state which nominated Obama went over to Hillary.
But will it?
My initial response to her was what
I have been saying for some time. If the momentum goes toward Hillary, if she continues to win primaries, superdelegates, even from pro-Obama states, can claim that Democrats are experiencing buyer's remorse, and throw in with Hillary.
My mother seemed skeptical, claiming there would be consequences come the next elections.
But that is where the superdelgate system falls apart.
Assuming the superdelegates even hold office, which is not true in all cases, it may be as long as six years before some come up for reelection, giving plenty of time for voters to forget. If you doubt they will, try to recall what, besides Afghanistan, was a major issue in 2002. It is very easy to forget a sueprdelegate betrayal when it was over half a decade ago. Other issues tend to arise in the meantime which overshadow a six year old grievance.
But, even assuming the superdelegate in question is an office holder, and that voters can maintain their anger long enough for it to make a difference, it still has little outlet. Party primaries tend to heavily favor the incumbent, making it unlikely that the anger over a superdelegate's vote will lose them the nomination. And, if they still win their party's primary, what is left? Does anyone really believe Democrat voters will vote en masse for the Republican because of anger over the superdelegate's vote?*
In short, the superdelegates really have no incentive to vote as their constituents did. They may often make noises about "following the will of the voter", and a few from truly insecure seats, with strongly partisan constituencies may have to do so, but the bulk of superdelegates are free to do as they wish.
With the election so close, and with some scandals emerging involving Obama, along with some signs of party insiders having second thoughts about Obama, it is quite possible that the superdelegate vote may decide the election, and may not follow the popular vote in doing so.
------------------------------------------------
* In yet another surprising response, my mother actually said she would do so. So, along with saying she would vote for
McCain if Hillary is nominated, she has also committed herself to voting against any superdelgate who votes for Hillary over his constituency's wishes.