It takes 2,382 delegates to win the Democratic nomination for the President of the United States. Despite nearly tying with Hillary Clinton in Iowa and winning New Hampshire, Bernie Sanders has a total count of 44 delegates. Hillary Clinton has a total count of 394 delegates. Why the huge difference when only Iowa and New Hampshire primaries have passed?
The answer: super delegates.
Super delegates are an annoyingly essential part of the Democratic primaries. They are party representatives who have the the power to vote on a candidate even if that candidate did not earn the most votes in that super delegate’s home state.
“Super delegates have a role to play in our political process,” UH political science graduate Gabriela Briones said. “Whether that role is to prevent party extremism or maintain the status quo, that’s up for debate.”
Although super delegates are supposed to protect party voters, the delegates are controversial because some believe they really protect the preferences of party establishment. The debate over the purpose is still a touchy subject.
Interestingly enough, the GOP has changed its rules on super delegates since 2012. Now super delegates only make up seven percent of the total number of Republican delegates. So why would the Democratic Party have a system in which some delegates totally disregard the voices of the people?
“Think of the Framers’ fear of the tyranny of the majority,” political science lecturer Michelle Belco said. “(Super delegates) are able to choose within the party’s slate of candidates but not necessarily for the state’s preference. Is it democracy at work?”
Belco highlights a debate that has been raging since the dawn of the nation. Although the electoral college usually represents the will of the popular vote, sometimes it does not. Should we not instead focus our outrage on a system explicitly outlined in the Constitution of the United States? No, we should not.
The United States is a democratic republic, not a direct democracy. While many people disagree with the concept of the electoral college, it is actually a sound way to protect the minority opinion of the country.
If people really want to believe their vote matters in presidential elections, then they should participate more in their local elections. Generally, electors are appointed by the state’s party conventions. So if a citizen wants electors to truly go by their beliefs, then they should vote on state representatives that best represent his or her beliefs.
As for the Democratic Party, when it comes to super delegates, the party should have a vote on whether they continue with that process. If enough party voters and/or representatives are taken aback by this process, they should be able to voice that opinion to determine the future of the party.
Opinion columnist Samuel Pichowsky is a political science sophomore and may be reached at [email protected]
State representatives are not the electors. No Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Electors are the 538 dedicated party activists we vote for, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.
There is nothing about being a democratic republic that requires a country using an Electoral College. Our Electoral College is not required by anything in the Constitution to be winner-take-all.
The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.
With the Electoral College in place, by changes in state laws, the National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80%+ of the states, like Texas, that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote.com