To The Daily Sun,
In a letter to the New Hampshire Union Leader, former New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Kathy Sullivan defended "superdelegates."
Sullivan practices law for property owners and real estate interests. She also works "in matters involving election law, campaign strategy and messaging." Evidently, "Confessions of a Super Delegate" is "messaging." See http://www.wadleighlaw.com/nh-lawyers/kathleen-n-sullivan/
"Superdelegates" violate "One Man (Person), One Vote", the spirit of all universal suffrage movements. The phrase is in Supreme Court rulings applying the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution to redistricting decisions (Reynolds v. Sims 1964). When one "superdelegate" vote equals thousands of others, we have peculiar gerrymandering, based not on geography but on party positions.
Sullivan claims "superdelegates" never went against the popular vote. But "superdelegates" began in 1984, possibly pushing Mondale over Hart. They could affect a close race. The DNC favors Clinton, with most "superdelegates" for Clinton. Millions would notice any "superdelegate" putsch. "Superdelegate" success might be their undoing.
If "superdelegates" cannot sway elections, why (do they) exist? Why does Sullivan bother? The "superdelegate" was invented in 1984 to multiply insider power when the Democratic Party overturned the McGovern-Frazer Commission work after 1968 which enhanced the popular vote against party insider influences.
On Feb. 23, Clinton and Sanders had 51 elected delegates each. However, Clinton had 451 "superdelegates" and Sanders just 19. Should insider votes count more than ours?
Defenders like Sullivan should be convinced to abandon "superdelegate" status and the mechanism should be abolished.
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 217