See you in Denver

Education Dude’s last post outlined 3 possible outcomes to the election. In the second, Hillary Clinton has less pledged delegates but takes the nomination through the support of superdelegates. Assuming the failure of the preposterous argument that Florida and Michigan primaries should yield pledged delegates, Education Dude’s second scenario is the only way for Hillary to take the nomination despite having fewer pledged delegates. This scenario is fundamentally an affront to democratic principles. Given the likelihood that Hillary will also trail in popular vote and states won, a Hillary nomination on the backs of superdelegates would be a travesty worthy of protests rivaling the 1968 Chicago convention.

Hillary argues that superdelegates should be free to vote for whom they think will be the best candidate, regardless of the outcome of state primaries. Her theory is not outside the bounds of Democratic Party rules. The approximately 794 superdelegates are unpledged delegates with no formal restrictions on whom they may vote for.

If superdelegates decide to vote for a candidate without regard to popular votes held in previous primaries, superdelegates hold enormous power. Their votes make up approximately 39% of the 2024 votes needed to win the nomination. While Democratic members of Congress and sitting Democratic governors are superdelegates, the vast majority of superdelegates are not presently accountable to an electorate. Most are either former office holders or party officials who may never have held elected office.

A natural consequence of this argument is that the votes of superdelegates may decide the nomination. A candidate who has won the popular vote, won the most state primaries, and won the most pledged delegates may nonetheless lose the nomination if he or she is not supported by most superdelegates.

If this scenario occurs, the voices of the millions of Democrats who voted in primaries and caucuses would be nullified by a small group of mostly unelected officials. The unfairness of the outcome is obvious, and it is mindboggling that such a scenario is advanced by a candidate of a party whose members previously decried the results of the 2000 election as nullifying the will of the voter.

While many Democrats condemn the 2000 election because the candidate who lost the popular vote won the White House, this outcome is far more fair than following Hillary’s superdelegate theory. Within the Electoral College system, electors are tied by tradition or state laws to vote for the candidate supported by their state. On the other hand, under Hillary’s theory, superdelegates would have no such restrictions, and the votes of ordinary citizens would be rendered irrelevant. If Hillary can convince superdelegates to support this theory and her candidacy, despite overall losses in pledged delegates, popular vote, and state primaries, then all American voters should be offended. Then I’ll see you in Denver.

- Law Dude