Superdelegates Carry too Much Power

Photo from Bernie Sanders' Facebook page

Now that it's primary season, the contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders intensifies. Clinton was supposed to be the lockdown favorite to win the Democratic Party's nomination, but thanks to social media and a message that reaches the first class, Sanders has become a serious contender to Clinton. This isn't too dissimilar to President Barack Obama's campaign in 2008 when he defeated Clinton through social media and his grassroots campaign. The problem for Sanders in 2016 is the superdelegates.

For those of you who don't know what a superdelegate is, they are a party leaders and distinguished elected officials that can choose whomever they want to endorse instead of being beholden to the voters' wishes of their state.

The problem with this is that their single vote could be equal to thousands of regular citizens' votes. This is unfair. In America, every vote should be counted as equal. The superdelegates have enough power to swing a primary election in the favor of a candidate that the general public did not choose to represent them.

Sanders has this problem currently. Already fighting an uphill battle with the media that gives him little airtime despite selling out rally venues up to the size of Madison Square Garden, Clinton has been presumed the party nominee from day one by the media, disrespecting the Senator from Vermont. Sanders has reached more people through social media than any other candidate for either party yet he is presumed to be a fringe candidate.

If you look at the delegate count as of March 4, Clinton has a modest lead with a count of 601 delegates compared to Sanders' 409. With the early southern states that have already held their primaries, this is not a surprise since Clinton polled better in the south. Sanders on the other hand polls better in western and northern states and if you look at the difference of the regular delegates, Sanders would be far from being knocked out of the race and would carry a certain momentum with him as states such as California and Oregon would hold their primaries in the future.

The monkey wrench is that Clinton dominates with the superdelegates. Instead of being a close race, when the superdelegates are factored in, Clinton is winning 1,058 to Sanders' 431. When future voters who have yet to participate in a primary look at this, it would appear that Clinton is destroying Sanders. This is only because she has 457 superdelegates compared to Sanders' 22. The 457 superdelegates she has have more power than the thousands of regular, everyday people that have voted for Sanders already. This is by far unfair.

On CNN, Jake Tapper asked the Democratic National Committee chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?" Schultz responded, "Unpledged delegates 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."

This sounds awfully bad. So campaigns that gain their power from the everyday person instead of those already in power are considered to be not as important in Schultz's eyes. Power remains in power. The will of the people is thwarted by those already in power. Maybe she feels this way since she was in charge of Clinton's first campaign for President in 2008 which fell to the grass-roots campaign run by Barack Obama.

With the appearance that Clinton is destroying Sanders this badly so far, many undecided voters find themselves swayed to vote for Clinton because she is winning instead of voting for who they think is really the best candidate.

Because of the existence of superdelegates, Sanders could beat Clinton by 711 delegate votes, effectively winning the majority of the United States by far and still lose the Democratic nomination if all 712 superdelegates voted for Clinton. Once again, extremely unfair and against the will of the regular everyday Democratic voter.

Neither party should have superdelegates. It's not fair to those who are not considered the front runner for their party's nomination at the beginning of the primary process. Sanders has proven that instead of being a fringe candidate, he is a real threat to win the majority of the regular everyday person's votes, but without the support of the superdelegates, it wouldn't matter.

Power keeps power.