Superdelegates for Sale?
February 15, 2008
This week’s feature news article highlights the role of Tufts students in Election 2008, particularly those who decided to take a hands-on approach to choosing the next president. While The Observer applauds this commitment to the political process, this magazine worries about those who simply wish to perform their civic duty and vote. The current system of selecting presidential nominees has silenced many who only desire to have their voice heard through the ballot box, and The Observer hopes that one of the legacies that will emerge from this pivotal election will be the overhaul of primary electoral process.
At first glance, the 2008 presidential election appears to represent a break from the past, particularly with the race for the Democratic nomination. Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in the midst of a tightly contested race that may not find resolution until the party convention this summer, a departure from recent electoral cycles. By that time, every state will have held a primary or caucus, allowing all voters to have had a say in deciding the Democratic nominee. Nonetheless, a convention coronation may still render votes meaningless because of superdelegates, members of the Democratic Party not bound to vote for an individual based on popular vote. These elected officials could invalidate the votes of several thousand by simply voting against the masses’ choice for the nominee, and in a close election, unaccountable superdelegates could be the deciding factor.
The race for the Republican nomination is no different in illustrating the severe drawbacks of the primacy electoral process. The caucuses in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire have a disproportionate influence on who becomes the nominee; while a win in either of these contests certainly does not guarantee the nomination, a poor showing could end a candidacy before a majority of the country can decide on the merits of a candidate.
An example of this effect is the candidacy of former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who as recently as November led in national polls for the Republican nomination. Despite the historical importance of the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, Mayor Giuliani went against conventional wisdom by focusing on Florida and the other major contests held on Super Tuesday, at the expense of campaigning in the early battleground states. This strategy failed miserably, as the former mayor lost momentum with dismal showings in both contests and eventually withdrew from the race after a third place finish in Florida. While Giuliani’s downfall resulted from many factors, the fact remains that Iowa and New Hampshire, not seen as representative for the whole country, effectively ended the campaign of a candidate who possessed robust national support before most Americans could cast a vote.
Of course, there exists no way to ensure that voters will have equal influence in choosing a nominee, barring a single, nationwide primary. Such a step would place unrealistic financial and temporal commitments on candidates at the expense of a more personal and open campaign. Acknowledging that, several remedies exist that could improve the primary process. Eliminating the superdelegates would ensure that a select few would not hold disproportional power in determining the Democratic nominee. A rotating regional primary system, where every four years a different region would hold the first primary, would allow new voters to set the tone of the campaign and establish party front-runners.
Essential logistical reform with absentee ballots and early voting must also play a role in ensuring that every vote counts, especially those cast by college students. Many students at Tufts were unaware of the deadline for applying for an absentee ballot; making this process more transparent should be an immediate goal. An even better solution would be for more states to allow students to vote in their primary at the beginning of the year, while most are at home for winter vacation. This step would both eliminate the need for an absentee ballot and increase the number of votes counted on Election Day.
Whatever the outcome of the presidential election, the role played by the primary electoral process will come under significant scrutiny, and rightly so. No reason exists to perpetuate a system with glaring deficiencies that weaken its ability to select presidential nominees. Anything less than significant overhaul in the future will be unacceptable.