Let the Super Delegates be Super

First, just the latest on where the presidential nomination race in the Democratic Party stands. As of today, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois leads Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York in the delegate race, 1575-1464, with both pledged and committed Super Delegates added in.

There are races coming up Saturday in Wyoming, a "closed" primary (that is Independents or Republicans cannot take part) then on Tuesday in Mississippi (an "open" primary in which party affiliation is not required). Wyoming has 12 unpledged delegates at stake out of 18 total, Missisippi has 33 pledged delegates at stake out of 40.

Sen. Obama is up by six points in a poll taken in Mississippi, I can't find much about Wyoming. But all eyes will be on the critical primary April 22 in Pennsylvania.

There are some other things going on in the day to day race that are pretty interesting but I will get to those tomorrow. For now, I want to talk about super delegates.

You've seen and heard the term perhaps without really knowing who and what these people are. I have alluded to them briefly but here is more background on them and an argument for them doing what they do.

While both parties have "pledged" delegates, that is, delegates who are selected in caucuses and primary elections, they also have delegates who are not determined by those mechanisms. These delegates in the Democratic Party are made up of current and former elected officials as well as party luminaries and retired office holders. There are 794 of them now and they comprise about one-fifth of the number of total delegates at the convention; that's why they are so important.

They were created in the early 1980s as a way of ensuring that party leaders and elected officials still have influence at the convention. The total number of these delegates have changed over the years and another category of these delegates called "add-ons" will hike the total of unpledged delegates from 794 to 870.

These 870 delegates will act as a counterbalance to the sentiments expressed by participants during the primary campaigns. These longtime party officials balance out the passions of new party members or people who vote in "open" contests who aren't members of the party at all.

Now the argument is heard that if neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. Clinton have enough votes to claim victory on the first ballot (and this is becoming more likely) these super delegates should reflect the will of the voters by affirming the candidate with the most delegate votes. Sounds pretty simple and straightforward.

But say the two combatants for the Democratic nomination are within 100 votes of each other after some 3,253 delegates have been chosen. That is a difference of only 1.5 percent! Not too much, is it?

That hardly qualifies as a mandate to me. Even though one candidate would be ahead of the other, it's a virtual tie. Now if the super delegates are supposed to merely reflect the will of the voters, is that enough of a margin to bear the entire voting weight of these delegates? One and a half percent? If that is the case, then why do you need them at all? That is not why they were created. They were created to break these ties--virtual or otherwise--by selecting the candidate who they think would be the best for the party.

There are those who say putting the choice of candidate selection in the hands of unelected officials is "undemocratic." On paper, that looks great, but in the U.S., there are dozens of examples of power concentrated in the hands of "unelected" officials. Judges can rule on political issues and in some cases, overturn elections. Many judges are appointed, not elected. Commissions, boards, and councils in the U.S. have varying degrees of power in our political system and their members and leaders are not elected.

One of the great things about the American system to me (warning: brag coming up) is the checks and balances on power in the American system. There are checks and balances on the president, Congress, the courts...and yes, even the voters. The Founding Fathers who set this all up way back when were not completely enthusiastic about democracy and were quick to cite its shortcomings (voters swayed by sentiment and emotion, the factor of corruption, the threat from outside influences, etc., the concentration of power in an individual). But nevertheless, they established a system where democracy was front and center but even some checks and balances were put on the people.

So it is not so un-American to my way of thinking that these super delegates were put in place for a reason and the reason was not to rubber-stamp voter choices. Besides, the political parties can set the rules they wish. Now of course, that is not completely true; they may be private organizations but they are so entwined with our political traditions and laws, that there are a whole series of laws and precedent involving them.

But if the Democrats (the Republicans have super delegates too but they are not called super delegates, there are not nearly as many--only 123!) want to set up a system in which ties are broken by more than 800 super delegates, then so be it. There is nothing, to my mind, inherently wrong, outside the mainstream, or undemocratic about it.

Obviously, others have different views. I would like to hear yours--should unelected party officials have the power to choose the Democratic Party's presidential candidate if neither have enough to triumph?

Of course, it will really get interesting if the super delegates split in a way that will still fail to produce a winner. That is a possibility, too.

All this is part of what makes American politics so fascinating and so thought-provoking. If you've got an opinion on this, shoot it my way via the comment or e-mail in the box to the right. I want to hear from you.

More later.