Politics Wed: Superdelegates

As promised, I am going to try to continue the Politics Wed posts once a month. So here we go!

I thought I'd take some time out to cover the "Superdelegate" concept that has been so hot in the news lately.

Both parties have these so-called Superdelegates. So I'm going to cover how each works. First the Dems (because D comes before R).

The Democrats

These select group of people are chosen due to their status as "current or former elected officeholders and party officials". There are 784 Superdelegates and they "make up approximately one-fifth of the total number of delegates". (Both quotes are from, you guessed it, Wikipedia.) Democrats require proportional representation. Supers are not obligated, however, to vote for the candidate supported by its constituency.

For an EXCELLENT, seriously EXCELLENT, write up and discourse on the Democratic Superdelegates, visit demconwatch.blogspot.com here. It has the rules for being one, the ACTUAL Supers, and their current position. Kudos to whomever put that together. It must have taken quite some time. Time I don't have. ;)

The Republicans

These guys are little more organized in their selection of Supers, I must say. Two members of the Republican Party from each state and the state's party chairperson are automatically a Superdelegate (from Wikipedia). HOWEVER, each state can earn BONUS delegates by "having U.S. Senators and governors from the Republican Party, sending a majority-Republican delegation to the U.S. House, maintaining partial or total Republican control of the state legislature ..." (From Wikipedia). Republicans do not require proportional representation.

Why this is important

Now, the Republicans Supers aren't quite that important this election. But the Democrats Supers are CRUCIAL since the race between Clinton and Obama is so close.

This article does a good job of breaking down the different scenarios for how the Democratic Nomination may play out.

So if you are a Democrat, or if you just want to weigh in on the issue, how do YOU feel about the Superdelegate concept (below is how I feel BTW)?

Warning: SOAPBOX AREA

First, I don't like that a bunch of rich, mostly white men get to vote any which way they choose and pretty much override the public's choice. That's undemocratic, if you ask me.

Clinton's camp has openly declared that she is relying on the Supers to boost her numbers over the lead Obama has in the popular vote. This pisses me off and makes me regret voting for her. Unfortunately, for me and my vote, this story "broke" the day after my regional primary.

Now I understand the need for "tie-breakers" should that scenario ever occur. But the one thing that makes Washington so corrupt is the lobbying of the politicians. And here we are, with our FUTURE presidents, LOBBYING other politicians for the job. Just more ways to be corrupt, if you ask me. In the REAL WORLD, at least for those of us not born with a silver spoon in our mouth, you INTERVIEW for the job and are chosen based on your merits and viability (i.e. salary requirements) -- maybe we should put that into the Presidential race? Who will cost us less and produce more!

What are YOUR salary requirements, Clinton, McCain and Obama?!! Maybe that $400,000/yr should be negotiable based on what you bring to the table! Maybe Obama is the "recent college grad" in this scenario since the media and the other candidate's keep focusing on his inexperience! Or maybe Clinton and McCain are the overpaid deadwood and need to be "let go" (or the one I like hearing around the office, "asked to leave")!

Okay, I think my train just left the tracks. But you get my point through my weird metaphor, I hope. When will they stop talking about how the American people matter and truly listen to what we're saying? Starting with the popular vote!