Friday, February 08, 2008

Because the delegate count between Obama and Clinton is virtually tied, even after Super Tuesday, the contest may very well come down to the so-called "superdelegates," a select group of people whose votes in the primaries mean a lot more than yours or mine.

There are about a million people in Rhode Island and collectively they send 32 delegates to the convention to pick the Democratic nominee. This means roughly 31,000 people will collectively cast one vote.

A superdelegate, on the other hand, is a single individual -- such as a senator -- whose single vote carries as much weight as those 31,000 people. The United States has an eligible voting population of about 200,000,000 people and they collectively send 3,253 votes to the convention.

There are approx. 796 of these superdelegates an each one of their votes is worth one vote toward the nominee. Put another way, 0.000004% of the population will cast 20% of the votes which determine who represents the Democratic party in 2008.

Kind of reminds me of a quote from Orwell's Animal Farm: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

CNN politicla analyst Donna Brazile said this of the superdelegates: "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this."

I'd like to say I couldn't agree more but actually, I can.

If superdelegates decide the Democratic nominee, I will vote for the GOP candidate in the general election. Why? Because simply staying home won't convey my disgust quite as well as I'd like.

And frankly I don't care if that nominee is Obama. It's wrong.

3 comments:

Peter said...

The difference between you and CNN analyst Brazile is that she is supposed to give us a hopefully objective analyse of the election process. You may state such personal opinions - she really shouldn't as long as she is working for CNN on covering this election. That is MY opinion.

Anonymous said...

I guarantee you ... if the superdelegates decide the nomination between Clinton and Obama, I'll quit the Democratic party, too.

Jason Nobody said...

peter wrote:
"The difference between you and CNN analyst Brazile is that she is supposed to give us a hopefully objective analyse of the election process. You may state such personal opinions - she really shouldn't as long as she is working for CNN on covering this election."

"Political analyst" is not synonymous with "reporter."

James Carville, David Brooks, Mark Shields, Mary Matalin, etc.

They're commentators just like Brazile. There's nothing wrong with opinions -- even partisan ones -- so long as they're out in the open.