TITAN EDITORIAL: Power in the wrong hands
By: Editorial Board
Issue date: 2/19/08 Section: Opinion
For the first time in a long time, young voters have shown more than just a passing interest in politics.
Thanks to Barack Obama, they actually care about the presidential election.
It's impossible to deny his appeal, yet the Democratic Party risks alienating an entire block of votes if superdelegates end up being the ones to determine this election.
To ensure that elections aren't left up entirely to the voters (why would they want to do that?), Democractic Party leaders decided in the 1980s that it was necessary to give certain people more power in deciding who the candidate was going to be.
This was due, in part, to the belief that voters were not sufficiently informed to make the decision themselves.
So the party created superdelegates: major democratic movers and shakers whose individual votes carry the same weight as thousands of votes from the general public.
It seems doubtful that the Democratic Party would do something so stupid as to choose a presidential candidate who didn't receive the majority of votes from the general public.
But the same thing could be said about the 2000 presidential election.
Al Gore won the majority of votes yet lost the presidency because the electoral college went the other way.
This similar system of elite-democracy could destroy the Democratic Party's chance of taking the White House this year.
No matter who wins the majority of votes -whether it be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama - if the superdelegate vote sways the election away from the popular vote, it could be that of all those voters will abandon the November presidential election.
The Democratic party will destroy itself. Young people, sick of what baby boomers have done with their complacent business-as-usual view of politics, are voting for Obama's voice of change.
If he isn't chosen as the party candidate because of superdelegates, this could have a lasting effect on their political outlook.
Democratic voters will generally fall behind Obama or Clinton, no matter who ends up as the candidate.
But an election determined by superdelegates will destroy the already fragile hope for change that is being so heavily stressed by the democratic candidates.
Politicians should not control elections. That priviledge is reserved for the people.
Thanks to Barack Obama, they actually care about the presidential election.
It's impossible to deny his appeal, yet the Democratic Party risks alienating an entire block of votes if superdelegates end up being the ones to determine this election.
To ensure that elections aren't left up entirely to the voters (why would they want to do that?), Democractic Party leaders decided in the 1980s that it was necessary to give certain people more power in deciding who the candidate was going to be.
This was due, in part, to the belief that voters were not sufficiently informed to make the decision themselves.
So the party created superdelegates: major democratic movers and shakers whose individual votes carry the same weight as thousands of votes from the general public.
It seems doubtful that the Democratic Party would do something so stupid as to choose a presidential candidate who didn't receive the majority of votes from the general public.
But the same thing could be said about the 2000 presidential election.
Al Gore won the majority of votes yet lost the presidency because the electoral college went the other way.
This similar system of elite-democracy could destroy the Democratic Party's chance of taking the White House this year.
No matter who wins the majority of votes -whether it be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama - if the superdelegate vote sways the election away from the popular vote, it could be that of all those voters will abandon the November presidential election.
The Democratic party will destroy itself. Young people, sick of what baby boomers have done with their complacent business-as-usual view of politics, are voting for Obama's voice of change.
If he isn't chosen as the party candidate because of superdelegates, this could have a lasting effect on their political outlook.
Democratic voters will generally fall behind Obama or Clinton, no matter who ends up as the candidate.
But an election determined by superdelegates will destroy the already fragile hope for change that is being so heavily stressed by the democratic candidates.
Politicians should not control elections. That priviledge is reserved for the people.
Multi
The Archives
Be the first to comment on this story