I'll say it again...

Superdelegates are SUCH B.S.

The claims that only 15% of Democrats may be represented and that independents and Republicans turned out to sabotage the Democratic primary seem ridiculous to me:

"Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.

"If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate."

"More important, although many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses.

"In the Democratic primary in South Carolina, tens of thousands of Republicans and independents no doubt voted, many of them for Mr. Obama. The same rules prevail at the Iowa caucuses, in which Mr. Obama also triumphed.

"He won his delegates fair and square, but those delegates represent the wishes not only of grassroots Democrats, but also Republicans and independents. If rank-and-file Democrats should decide who the party’s nominee is, each state should pass a rule allowing only people who have been registered in the Democratic Party for a given time — not nonmembers or day-of registrants — to vote for the party’s nominee."

First of all, if Democrats felt passionately about a certain candidate, they would no doubt go to the polls on their respective primary dates and make their voices heard. Since they didn't, assuming they would have voted for Hillary Clinton seems a little presumptuous, no?

Secondly, Ferraro claims that superdelegates "were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country." It seems clear what active Democrats have thought is best for the country up to this point. It seems clear what independents and wavering Republicans have thought is best for the country up to this point (given both groups' reactions to the McCain candidacy, I seriously doubt they're trying to sabotage the Democratic Party's chances). Considering the wishes of both of these groups would no doubt give some indication as to what the people believe is best for our country (and the last time I checked, Republicans, independents, and all other citizens, affiliated or not, are still part of our country, no?). So why argue against superdelegates choosing positions that represent their constituencies? At least there's a pure, traceable reason for that. To me, it also seems the safest political route. Without a clear history of agreement with a certain candidate over policy and practice (which, considering the similarities between the two candidates' policies, I imagine would be hard to find), one could seemingly wonder what sort of backroom agreements had been made in exchange for support. I'm not going to lie; this worries me.

Thirdly, I find the entire concept a bit insulting. As a voting American, I like to think that those who are charged with the stewardship of our democracy respect my choices, and those of my fellow Americans. I understand that a need for superdelegates (or some other solution) was required in the past, but I do not believe that it was a recurring problem that necessitated the permanent superdelegate fixtures. Why complicate the party system for voters?

Speaking of the overly-complicated party system, I doubt if half of Democrats in the shafted states of Florida and Michigan really understand why they're votes (which Ferraro, among other HC supporters, are now fighting to include in the delegate count) were not counted. That being said, arguing for inclusion at this point seems both fiercely hypocritical and tragically pathetic. No one can really say what the count in those states truly represents - considering voters were told they wouldn't be counted, my educated guess is that many of them stayed home. Perhaps only those with nothing better to do on a Tuesday (like, say, senior citizens - a demographic segment that Clinton has a commanding lead in), actually took the time to go to the polls. While I believe that Florida does have a high concentration of these folks, and perhaps Hillary still would have won if it were a legitimate primary, no one can know for certain. So why retroactively count those votes if it were not an act of desperation? But I'm sure all of you know this already.

In short, I found Geraldine Ferraro's entire argument a bit flat. Particularly as a woman, I respect her and all of her accomplishments, but I cannot help but exercise my mind, as a woman, as an American, as a human being - and my mind believes the entire concept of superdelegates to be both wrong and offensive. For further explanation, see my rant on the two party system. I think if we are to start trusting ourselves on matters of national policy, first we need our governmental leaders to trust us as well. Seeing our choices enacted is a thrill that many Americans have sorely missed during the previous administration's tenure. I think a reversal of the will of the voting public would be devastating at this point, both to the upcoming political competition and to the very future of Americans. A large demographic group is just beginning to flex their political muscles, and to shut them out now, early in their lives, is to encourage apathy and disengagement in the future. Despite what they try to tell me on the news, I still believe most human beings are good people, most Americans are good people. I trust them. The ones I don't trust are those who think they know what's best for the country, without listening to the country at all.