DNC not so super

I've heard a lot lately about superdelegates. Remember, "one person, one vote" or "every vote counts the same"? Not necessarily so in the Democratic Party.

Let's say half a million voters voted in a primary and there was one delegate awarded for every 100,000 voters. The actual formula is more complicated, but it is based on the number of registered Democratic voters in the state at a set date prior to the primary or caucus. So 300,000 votes would be three delegates and the other 200,000 votes would be two delegates.

This would fairly represent the will of the people, if left alone. Here come the superdelegates. Whereas the candidate had to get 100,000 votes to pick up one delegate, with superdelegates the candidate doesn't need any votes.

Superdelegates can get appointed by reason of their political position- i.e. Bill Clinton because he is a former president. So in this scenario, Bill Clinton holds the sway of 100,000 voters without a single ballot being cast. Doesn't seem very democratic, does it? It gets worse.

Take Richard Michalski, the president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers whose political action committee has given generously to the Democratic Party. Howard Dean appointed him a delegate, and the DNC ratified it. So money from special interests may not be going to an individual candidate directly but it sure buys clout, possibly as much clout as millions of real voters.

If the nomination goes to the superdelegates, Richard Michalski's vote could thwart the will of the majority of the American people because he thinks one candidate will be more amenable to his union than another.

I seem to remember in an election long ago the Democrats being upset that the winner of the popular vote wasn't the election winner.

I guess that same reasoning doesn't apply to the Democratic Party.

Don't laugh, Republicans; your party isn't any better.

David Patnoe
Camarillo