“Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot,” a recent DNC memo states. “A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.”
Which is outrageous to me. What is the point of this whole procedure if, at the end, our vote may actually not count? Further, who in the hell decided this was a good idea? I can only imagine what would happen in this country if Obama had the nomination locked up by the convention only to have some DNC suit amble to the microphone and say, "Uh, yeah. Well, so here's the thing..."
And don't think this isn't possible:
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.[...]
“I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates,” a senior Clinton official told me [Roger Simon] Monday afternoon. “All the rules will be going out the window.”
Can you imagine how much faith in voting would be lost if this actually happened? America has a legendary apathetic voting base as it is, but if people watched their delegates completely disregard their wishes it could alienate an entire generation of voters. And what about the concept of the democrats running a candidate that their party doesn't actually think should be president? Would there even be a chance of her winning? Would the backlash of the democratic voter base be so incredible that we would see the smallest democratic voter turnout in history? Would the democrats then achieve the impossible task of running a candidate that sucks worse than John Kerry?
And then think about all of the things that would be done to convince pledged delegates to switch. Clinton would be paying back favors for the rest of her life. There's no possible way her presidency would be viewed as legit. I bet in 50 years we'd see a book published of the things the Clinton campaign did to win the 2008 nomination that would rival Watergate.
I think Clinton's biggest advantage is a fat Rolodex and a hugely influential husband who could call in more than his share of favors. We might actually see how real that advantage actually is. I hope for the sake of all of us we don't.
Why don't we elect our presidential candidates through a straight popular vote, again?
ReplyDeleteClearly, delegates are just like Tom, from Office Space:
BOB SLYDELL
So what you do is you take the specifications from the customers and
you bring them down to the software engineers?
TOM
That, that's right.
BOB PORTER
Well, then I gotta ask, then why can't the customers just take the
specifications directly to the software people, huh?
TOM
Well, uh, uh, uh, because, uh, engineers are not good at dealing with
customers.
BOB SLYDELL
You physically take the specs from the customer?
TOM
Well, no, my, my secretary does that, or, or the fax.
BOB SLYDELL
Ah.
BOB PORTER
Then you must physically bring them to the software people.
TOM
Well...no. Yeah, I mean, sometimes.
BOB SLYDELL
Well, what would you say… you do here?
TOM
Well, look, I already told you. I deal with the goddamn customers so
the engineers don't have to!! I have people skills!! I am good at
dealing with people!!! Can't you understand that?!? WHAT THE HELL IS
WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!!!!!!!
This is a very distressing story. And this comes after the reports of the Clinton efforts to have the delegates from Florida and Michigan count at the convention -- even though she only won those states because Obama followed DNC rules and didn't put his name on the ballots there. It's cliche, but Clintonian ambition does seem to have no limits.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of something I recently heard about the superdelegates. I've thought that, in the end, they will just confirm the vote of the pledged delegates. But since the Clintons have such a strong network within the party elite, I heard that superdelegates have to think: if I vote for Obama, and he loses to McCain, I'm screwed; but if I vote for Clinton, and she loses to McCain, my career is still safe. It's sad that they face such a choice, and that (I'm sure) most of them will vote in their own interest unless Obama develops a large lead.
its time democracy be raised to a new level. we should understand that this "one man one vote" system only leads to ridiculousness. maybe its time we elected our leaders based on how long they can last in the ring with will ferrel in a greco-roman wrestling match. yes we can. YES WE CAN!!!
ReplyDeleteIs this blog made of papyrus??
ReplyDelete