As previously indicated ("Dealing With Deadlock, Superdelegates, Michigan and Florida: A Challenge to Both Campaigns", February 2, 2008*), the notion that Superdelegates would change the outcome of 50 state primaries and caucuses ought to be absolutely outrageous to anyone who believes a) in democracy; and b) in change, i.e., that peoples' voices will literally be heard.
It is the intra-party equivalent to Bush v Gore, where the Supreme Court decided by 1 vote, in an unprecedented opinion that they indicated should not be viewed as precedent, that George Bush should be president.
The solution is this: Howard Dean should solicit proxies from the 796 superdelegates to have him vote them for the candidate that wins the elected delegate count; those proxies should not be valid unless and until Dean gets 398 proxies. Thus, if a superdelegate signs such a proxy, and Dean does not get to 398, then the proxy is void, we are back to square zero, and there is no risk to a superdelegate to agree. Once Dean gets to 398, however, he will vote them for the person who wins the elected delegates, so that how the other superdelegates vote will not change the outcome.
Why should any superdelegate agree to this, thus depriving themselves of their unique power? First, and I realize this may sound laughable, it is the right thing to do. It would be uplifting to the process to hear that people truly cared about the impact on the country, the party and the people over and above what Andy Warhol's 15-minutes of fame may provide.
Secondly, so long as the final outcome is not known, their agreement would not be geared to one or the other candidate. For example, Adam Smith, Congressman in Washington's 9th District, has already said that he would agree to some program so long as everyone else did -- and he is Barack Obama's major lieutenant in the State of Washington. Under this proposal, once half the superdelegates agreed, their vote would not determine the choice of nominee.
Thirdly, do these superdelegates really want to be responsible for splitting the party asunder, for blowing the only good thing to emerge from Bush's disastrous 8 years, the opportunity for creating a generation -- not just this election -- of increasingly progressive politics? Do they want to squander this opportunity?
If the unelected (for choosing among presidential candidates) party establishment reverses the outcome of the 50 state primaries and caucuses, the nomination may not be worth having. While the winning candidate who has nomination snatched by the superdelegates is likely to make a game statement on unity, his/her followers will not buy it. The 50.1+% of those who thus become disenfranchised and will have been shown no respect will revolt, taking to the streets of Denver and in many places around the country. There will not be enough time prior to November to put humpty-dumpty back together.
As those in future primary/caucus states consider their vote, they might want to make the candidates' stand on this issue -- whether the superdelegates should be allowed to reverse the outcome of the elected delegates -- as the key matter by which they judge the integrity of the candidate and their respect for the people.
It provides a key insight into how your voice will be heard when they govern.
[*I am pleased to note that the suggestions in this article regarding Michigan and Florida conducting their primaries again at the end of the process, and thus get seated under party rules, and where they will likely determine the winner, is being actively pursued].