Since Bridge Man and I moved in together my news intake has greatly increased. Before that I couldn't tell you what the heck was going on in the world. It was not that I disliked the news. It was that it just did not take precedence over my obsessions with Friends and The Real World/Road Rules Challenge. I could tell you about the latest drama between Coral and Mike before I could begin to discuss the mounting issues with the war in Iraq.
As I bow my head in disgust I feel that I must remind you that this neglect of the news, nationally and globally, is all in the past. I now watch the news. So much so that there are some days when I want to beg Bridge Man to turn off the third showing of Meet the Press. There is only so much one woman can take. After all, there are only so many ways one can analyze the same issue.
Obama won the popular vote in State A but Clinton received the most delegates because the super delegates out voted the regular voters.
Clinton is projected to win the popular vote in State B. But you never know what those darned superdelegates are going to do.
This is what I don't get. Who the heck are these superdelegates and why does their vote count more than the votes of the citizens? I understand the idea of the superdelegate; they are current or former elected officeholders and party officials who get the opportunity to put in their thirty cents (You know, inflation) when the race becomes too close to determine a front runner for the party. In the event that Obama wins the popular vote in a state but inevitably loses due to overzealous superdelegates, where is the democracy in that? Why would we want political insiders making such decisions for us? Are they not the guys on the inside? You know the ones that have led this country down the frazzled path we are on.
I repeat: These superdelegates don't HAVE to vote. They vote ONLY in the event that a race is too close to call. So what are they doing finagling with the popular vote? It takes me back to that fateful night in November of 2000, you know the whole Florida thing. It's just too awful to discuss. I shudder at the thought.
I took a class in college, Social Issues. The main goal of the class was to discuss the construction and study of social problems, to understand how and why things are defined and treated as social problems, and to gain the ability to asses the claims made about social problems. This was, hands down, the most interesting class I took during my college career. It was everything people look for in a continuing education course; intellectucal discussions, polar view points, and new ideas that make you say: Ooohhh, I never thought of it like that. Anyway...
In my opinion, this whole superdelegate thing has become what my professor would have categorized as a social issue. People question who these superdelegates are and what their purpose may be. Unfortunately once they receive their highly political explanation they move on and are apathetic to give it a second thought. But no matter what asinine rationalization is given for this matter I NEVER think: Oh, that makes sense. I see what you're saying. The superdelegates are doing a good job. They are not abusing their power at all. Their vote should totally count for more than anyone elses.
And what does this whole thing do for the incentive to vote? I don't want to vote in a political election when there is the possibility that my ballot may not even be considered? Why waste my time? I'm not saying you shouldn't vote. Please do. But the point of an election is to be heard. These superdelegates are snuffing out the voice of the American citizens. It seems to me that this whole issue is just another misapplication of the Consitiution brought to you, America, by the people "we" placed in the White House.
2 comments:
I'm with you. But I also think Chuck Todd on MSNBC is right when he says that if we wind up in a Superdelegate situation, those Supers will be so suddenly inundated with email and phone calls from both sides -- something most of them aren't used to -- that they may throw up their hands and walk away before casting a vote that defies the pledged delegate count.
The big difference between this situation and what happened in Florida is time. Florida happened so fast and was something that nobody was planning contingencies for ahead of time, so the debate didn't have time to sufficiently play out in the public before it was fixed, er, resolved in the courts. But this is a possibility looming on the horizon and we have a couple of months, possibly, to debate it and give it lots of visibility. Hopefully that will lead to the most democratic result.
I'm with you. This superdelegate thing does not feel kosher to me.
I get what teej/Chuck Todd said, but I don't know if I have faith that it would work that way. I think that insiders would do what they tend to do- act in a way that serves them, not us.
I don't know. I feel so conflicted about this whole process- at once so hopeful and also so, so cynical.
Post a Comment