Democracy, Unless it's Close

Last Wednesday I woke up confused, as many were, about what the delegate count would be in the Democratic race. The problem was I couldn't understand what a "super delegate" was. This site has the official definition of one...but to some it up, they are basically any Democratic party member that is an elected official in federal government or member of the Democratic national committee. These super delegates are not bound by normal primary restrictions, therefore they can support whomever they choose when convention time comes.
Essentially what this means is that if the race does go to the convention than it will not be the voters who decide this nomination it will be the politicians. The Congressman and Governors who will decide for us. It basically forces the campaigns to offer cushy Ambassador positions in nice locations or Cabinet appointments in exchange for a vote at a brokered convention.
Everyone talks about how important it is to vote and participate in our democracy but in a close election when each vote really does matter the decision is made by politicians, not by the voters.

"A Political Corespondent's Dream"... Democrats' Nightmare?

Tonight during CNN's "Election Center" coverage of the Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, and Kansas primary and caucuses, correspondent and analyst John King remarked that a brokered convention for the Democrats would be "a political correspondent's dream," given how rare such an occurrence is. In fact, as Newsweek points out, the last one was in 1952, and that's a long time by any measure, especially in the world of presidential politics. Correspondents, reporters, and all in attendance at the Democratic National Convention in late August would be witness to true history, and pure drama. To think that the battle to be the nominee of the Democratic Party would come down to negotiations between "superdelegates," figuring out what to do with John Edwards' delegates, and coming up with a way to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida is incredible, almost unimaginable to most people. Network coverage of the convention, which has declined each cycle as the event has become all-but symbolic in its purpose, would certainly increase as the convention became the true battleground site. Debate would be real, loud, and ongoing throughout the event, and the planned speeches and public events would be monitored as closely as ever for signs of where the party was going with its decision. If conventions are normally planned by the nominee's staff, then how would events unfold with both Clinton and Obama injecting their preferences and choices for speakers, music, and timing of events? With no nominee, the Democratic Party would look the most disorganized and disunited it has ever appeared in recent times at just the moment of the highest public attention. And there most certainly would be no Vice Presidential nominee on stage, unless they had each chosen one of their own, or unless they had chosen to run together by then, with the order of the ticket yet to be determined.

In essence, the Democratic National Convention would be must-see-TV. And in a year with record primary period ratings for CNN and Fox News, they are evidently just licking their chops waiting for this rarest of rare events to occur. It would be the circus of all circuses, but with huge stakes at play. These are the kinds of things that students of politics and political correspondents read about in text books. Come this August, this could be the reality of the Democratic Party.

But not if Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee Chairman, has anything to do with it. He's recently been quoted as saying that "I think we're going to have a nominee by middle of March or April. But if we don't, then we're gonna have to get the candidates together and make some kind of arrangement, because I don't think we can afford to have a brokered convention." He realizes how ugly such a situation would be, even if the press and the Republican Party are eager to see it happen. Dean recognizes that the party, including the voters and superdelegates, must come together and make a decision in the next few months or else face the prospect of losing in November. As a student of political history himself, Dean knows that the more divided a party is heading into November, the more likely it is to lose: "As Dean observed, there have been three divided Democratic conventions in recent decades -- 1968, 1972 and 1980. Democrats lost each time." It sure would be interesting, but it's probably not in the best interest of the Democratic Party.

John King can still hold on to his dream, however, at least for the time being.