Jace Brady
[email protected]
Last week, in true democratic fashion, hundreds of thousands of New Hampshirites flocked to the polls to cast ballots for their candidates of choice. With a resounding cry, Democrats and independents declared their preference for the seasoned senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.
Sanders won by a 22-point margin, yet he managed to leave the state with fewer delegates than the party favorite, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This travesty of democracy was possible because the major parties have structured their primary process so that a few individuals as superdelegates are able to influence the results in a very non-democratic way.
Superdelegates are a creation of party elites who believe that the American people are too incompetent to choose those who represent their best interests. The Democratic Party has more than 700 superdelegates, and if they were to all support the same candidate, it would make up nearly one-third of delegates required for the nomination. This means that 700 individuals hold the same nominating power as millions of Americans.
U.S. voters have been adamant over the last several years that they are tired of corruption in politics. Populist uprising from both parties have led to candidacies of Sanders and Republican Donald Trump. These uprisings stem from the preferential treatment big donors and special interests have received from politicians who end up in power. However, superdelegates have the potential to lead to more nefarious agreements that financial donations ever could.
The United States has campaign contribution limits of $2,500 per person because it fears that greater donations may result in a quid pro quo between donor and candidate. This effort to prevent corruption seems reasonable to most Americans who believe that candidates are susceptible to financial extortion. Yet, in Iowa, Jeb Bush paid $2,800 per vote and roughly one delegate was awarded per 5,000 votes. A brief extrapolation shows some candidates may value a superdelegate at $14 million. Of course, party elites are surely above the corruption that taints the general populace.
The Democratic Party has demonstrated at every opportunity that it is committed to preventing a Sanders nomination. After several coin flips in the Iowa caucuses determined Clinton the winner of the Hawkeye State, Sanders must have been confident winning by a 22 point margin in New Hampshire would finally get him on the center podium. Unfortunately for the Vermont native, the party usurped his victory in favor of the inevitable candidate.
Americans decided long ago that all individuals should have the same voting power as another. Women and minorities toiled tirelessly to earn an equal right to an equal vote. Yet, the parties have wrested away this concession in an effort to exert control over the nomination process. In our political system, we are essentially already limited to two viable choices for president, and now, our choices may be made for us. It is time for Americans to defend their right to choose their leaders, rather than having party elites, bestowed with superdelegates, make their decisions for them. The cries that rant against election finance reform must shift their efforts to minimizing the effect parties have on the nominating process. If we do not speak out now, the parties will continue to curtail our voice until candidates are determined entirely by the elites, and we will be forced to choose between two equally bad choices to lead us.