Superdelegate Issue Produces Threats of Quitting Democratic Party

Donna Brazile was quoted as saying, “If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this,” Brazile said.

And Chris Bowers of Open Left wrote this post, How I Could Quit the Democratic Party, that makes the same argument. (speaking of democratic anything, Open Left crashed Firefox twice – what’s with that?)

What do I think of these protestations?

I’m not a student of political history, so for now, the best I can offer is this Wikipedia review of how the superdelegate element came into being. According to the entry, it wasn’t implemented until 1980. So presidential races of 1980, 84, 88, 92, 96, 2000 and 2004 have operated with the system in place.

Comments like, “I will quit the party” are, of course, dramatic and are intended to be dramatic. They represent passion and displeasure at the same time and, given who says the words, have largely a symbolic existence. Who is saying these words? Very serious partisans.

But what about in the past? There have now been seven presidential races in which superdelegates existed. Some questions I have, which may very well have answers that I just don’t know, would be:

1. Was the system’s creation contentious to begin with?

2. Have there already been efforts to dismantle the system – and how much support have those efforts had?

3. Do people really feel that returning to a system that lacks a superdelegate feature would be preferable, overall, in perpetuity?

4. Are there other mechanisms through which the pros of superdelegates can be retained and the cons can be jettisoned?

Institutions, organizations face these kinds of situations all the time. And the risk that they take with instituting a system that could lead to a situation that is now being decried by some as patently undemocratic was apparent at the time of the adoption of the system. And people went forward with it anyway. And now, that situation is here. They knew – now live with it.

I say this as someone who has been intimately involved in the redrafting of a constitution for a 150 year old organization. We’ve tried for almost three years to create a new venue through which powerful, long-serving individuals in the organization could contribute without having a disproportionately powerful hand in issues that come to votes – because the size of this group of individuals and their relative level of involvement in the organization is disproportionately large and rare, respectively, compared to the overall membership of the organization.

In general, we could not have been met with more resistance. Over and over, we would recite how powerful this group will be able to be and will only grow in strength for a variety of reasons, and still, they refused to give up the power and position they believe they’ve earned and deserve.

The day hasn’t yet arrived when that power has been used, full force, but the organization has chosen to risk that possibility, rather than upset the current system.

When the Democrats instituted the superdelegate rule, they made choices too. And if current Democrats want to make changes because they no longer like what those choices wrought, then they have to go through whatever the party went through when the superdelegate concept was instituted.

But until then, to talk about, to threaten, I will quit the Democratic Party – nice sound-bite, makes us know you’re serious. But, seriously, it’s irresponsible, given what we, as Democrats, might be facing in the general election.