Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process. - Hillary Clinton
If you get so unequal that people believe they don't have a chance, that the field isn't level for them and their children, that puts democracy at risk. - Hillary Clinton
American politics is always an open competition. - Hillary Clinton
As I looked at the current delegate count for the Democratic Party this morning, I noticed an intriguing statistic:
Despite a virtual tie in Iowa and a sound thumping in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton is leading Sanders by a significant margin, thanks entirely to the Democratic Party’s superdelegate system.
Of the 4763 delegates that will vote in the Democratic Party caucuses and primaries, 2,382 are required to win the Democratic Party nomination. Of those, 712 delegates are superdelegates,
These superdelegates are an interesting group, being made up of current and former presidents, vice-presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC chairs, Democratic governors, Democratic members of the United States Senate, Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives and elected members of the Democratic National Committee.
So while 2,382 delegates are required to win the nomination, 30% of that total, if one’s cards are played well behind closed-doors, come from a select few people and not “the people”.
It sounds like an unfair system at first blush so it would make sense that one could turn to the leadership of the Democratic Party to allay any concerns that this system could be used to "fix" a result.
However, when DNC Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz notes that “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists”, one realizes that the Democratic Party knows nothing of democracy and anyone who subscribes to such a system knows nothing of it either.
If Sanders and Clinton come to the finish in a dead heat or even with Sanders running a slight lead , Hillary Clinton will be handed the nomination, removing the voice of the people from the Democratic Party candidate selection process.
This doesn’t seem to bother many people or maybe they don’t care enough to ask.
Perhaps we should examine it another way.
Let’s assume that the most recent Super Bowl had the Panthers leading by 6 and they had the ball on the Denver 1 yard line. It’s first and goal for the Panthers with 1 second left on the clock. Since there is only time for one more play (ignoring the rule that a penalty on the last play may allow another play), the game is pretty much a slam dunk for Carolina.
Now assume that as the ball is about to snapped, an announcement is played over the loudspeaker. It is this:
The NFL has ruled that in the interests of a Hollywood ending for Peyton Manning, the game will be awarded to the Denver Broncos.
Football fans would erupt in anger and people would be demanding someone’s head.
And yet when the same thing is happening in regards to the selection of the individual who may become the next President of the United States (once the most powerful person in the world but no longer), no one seems to care
It’s an interesting thing to note that what is unimportant can elicit such outrage yet what matters doesn’t seem to matter to most.
The Bottom Line
Many people in America have tuned out of the political process for a variety of reasons, including finding themselves being crushed as they fight for day-to-day survival, being cynical about their political representatives or benefiting from the way things are.
Ironically, while few people care about the process of selecting a leader, many people have much to say when things aren’t going well.
Maybe if they took more time to care early in the leader selection process, they might choose a better leader or at least understand what the leader is dealing with the next time something happens or the leader makes a choice that upsets the voters.
Unfortunately, most voters don’t care or are so uninformed that they keep proving Winston Churchill’s observation correct when he noted:
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
To implore the voter to make democracy something better than “two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner” as noted by James Bovard is a useless waste of time.
The average voter couldn’t care less who or how someone comes to power but they have lots to say when things go wrong.
As a strategy guy, I think this is insane and it makes the average voter insane as a result.
Are you insane or merely an uninformed, misinformed, indifferent, apathetic, rabid follower unable to think for yourself and thus a waste of a vote?
Does this mean your right to vote should be taken from you since you don’t care how it is used?
How would you like it if someone denied you the right to vote as a result?
After all, if you are misinformed or uninformed, what difference does it make if you vote or not?
How can you prove that you are worthy of expressing your opinion at the ballot box?
Do you even care?
If you don’t care, fret not. You will likely pay little penalty if any at all.
Your children and your children’s children on the other hand …..
…. well, that’s another story.
In service and servanthood,
PS For those offended that I said that the President is no longer the most powerful person in the world, they should recognize that the POTUS is only halfway up the chain when it comes to the security classification system in America. This means that there are people who are ranked higher than the POTUS in regards to national security and who have access to information that the President is not permitted to know. Since information (and knowledge when information is applied) is power, who do YOU think is the most powerful person in America?