Joe Lane
[email protected]
Despite Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ win in the New Hampshire primary just a few weeks ago, he walked away with fewer delegates than his competitor, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The inconsistency arose because of superdelegates: party leaders in the Democratic Party who act as delegates but can vote for whomever they choose, regardless of the popular vote.

Following the superdelegate scenario that unfolded in New Hampshire, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was interviewed by CNN’s Jake Tapper in which she said, “[Superdelegates] exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists.”

After Wasserman Schultz realized what she had said, she back-pedaled a bit, clarifying her point by saying the current system allows a diverse set of Democrats to play a role as delegates. But it was too late.

While Tapper had to send the interview to commercial virtually as soon as Wasserman Schultz finished her answer, her comments revealed just how dangerous and powerful our two-party system has become.

Essentially, Wasserman Schultz was saying that the current system is in place to prevent Democratic Party members who aren’t true establishment Democrats from winning the nomination — such as democratic-socialist Sanders. After all, if there’s one thing that scares the powerful Democratic and Republican Parties, it’s a prominent outsiders.

A Washington Post article says there are some legitimate reasons for the superdelegate system, namely, that it can be used to prevent a candidate from being nominated if a serious scandal occurs late in the race. The system would allow the party to avoid an uninformed popular vote and instead nominate a candidate not shrouded in scandal.

RELATED: UNI needs to pay its own bills