I Didn't Move Here From Iran for Superdelegates

I'm trying hard to save my relationship with the American democracy these days by trying to remember why we fell in love in the first place. Democratic elections mean a lot to me personally. I spent the first 16 years of my life in Iran, a country that's run by an authoritarian theocracy where every little boy can grow up to become a president -- after showing his radical religious credentials and getting the approval of the Islamic Guardian Council; Iran is a country where people have full freedom of speech -- just not any freedom of post-speech; a country where people are thankful for sometimes feeling free enough to say "we aren't free." I moved to the United States by myself at 16 because I knew that if I stayed in Iran, my destiny and future would be written for me and not by me. I wanted to be the one to determine my quality of life and trusted with my judgment on who I believed could best help me achieve my aspirations.

But ever since I moved here, I have repeatedly found elements in the American electoral system that have left me disillusioned about the quality of this democracy. I was first disillusioned one year after my move when the Supreme Court of the United States stopped the counting of votes in Florida in 2000 and practically declared the candidate with the fewer popular votes the president of the United States. Learning about the Electoral College system during that election didn't help my sentiments about the process either. In the ensuing years, I learned more about how congressional districts are determined and the concept of gerrymandering. Again, I saw this as another way in which the integrity of this democracy has been distorted to benefit special interests over the people's interests.

Earlier in the current election cycle, I found two more disturbing elements that I saw as undermining the process: the level of money that every candidate seems to need in this election to compete, and the poor quality of the media coverage both in terms of the amount of control it has over candidates' shot for the high office through the level of coverage and in terms of its laziness and tendency to simply repeat the allegations made by one campaign against another in the form of he-said-she-said instead of adequately investigating the merits of those allegations. During these eight years, I have come to learn that America's promise for democracy about which I had heard so much in the streets of Tehran seems to come with a number of footnoted disclaimers I couldn't read from afar.

But throughout all of this, I have been able to keep my faith in the system believing that at least in this country, if people want to find the truth, they have the sources that they can conceivably refer to. Because of this possibility, it is conceivable to think that while it may take a lot more work than it should, the voters could at least theoretically become aware of issues and candidates' positions, and therefore, their votes could conceivably represent their true interests if they just take the time and energy to do their homework.

But what I have found most outrageous about the process ever since I came to the United States is the possibility that 800 so-called super delegates can decide and potentially reverse the will and judgment of millions of voters in this country on who they believe is the best choice for the Democratic Party's nomination. Not that it matters, but almost half of these superdelegates aren't even elected and have neither anything to lose nor any incentives to represent anyone's interests but their own.

No. This cannot happen. The United States prides itself in being the greatest democracy in the world despite the questionable rules by which elections have been taking place. But the notion that after all the biases and electoral flaws, 800 people could get together in a room -- smoke-filled or nonsmoking -- and outright reverse the final decision of the voters in this country is inconsistent with any reasonable definition of democracy. While it has become fashionable to mock the elections in Venezuela, Russia and Iran, this country will have no legitimacy in claiming the high ground when it comes to electoral integrity if it allows a Soviet-style nomination process to go forward and accept to live by the people's will overturned.

The combination of the burning passion of some Clinton supporters and their frustration about their candidate's continuous decline in status and chances for victory seem to have blinded them to the price they unknowingly seem to be willing to pay to get her nominated. What those would like to see Hillary get nominated -- either because of her credentials or her sex -- need to realize is that a woman has been able to come so far and become a viable candidate for president in this country -- and not in Iran -- precisely because of the democratic process. Democracy gives people the ability to fight for their rights and materialize them by voting for public servants whom they believe are most likely to defend those rights.

Having the superdelegates monopolize the democratic process will set the precedent for recreating the kind of old patriarchal class-system citizenship, the highest price of which women, minorities and the poor are going to pay in the long-run. Don't buy a $10 candidate on a credit card just to pay 30% interest on your rights and status as a citizen for the rest of your life.

Regardless of who you support, the defeat of your candidate may hurt in the short-run; but the value of having that happened because of a process that gave you and everyone else an equal voice is higher than that of any single candidate in this or any election in history.

Comments

[Guitarsandmore]

I'm right there with you Sam. Bush winning the election in 2000 was a cruel blow to the country, especially the way it went down, like a dirty poker game. I have been worried every since that there is no way to recover, but am encouraged by the last congressional elections and the amount of support turning out for the Democratic primaries. As long as people care, we have a chance of saving democracy. We have to have the conviction of King Leonidas and the 300 at the battle of thermopylae.

Instead of spears and shields we need the truth, the facts, the evidence, and the ability to go to court win and convict the traitors that are destroying our country.

Superdelegates must go
electoral college must go
homeland security must go
The constitution must be reinstated
elections must be free and fair
the democratic process is more important than the candidates
oversight and accountability (to the people) must be given high priority

Every day I walk down to the polling booth and look at it and then I check to see if I still have my voters registration card. Every day.

[Seral]

Equal voice? Sorry to burst your bubble, but, in the primaries or caucuses the most equal voice you can get is valid only within a state. So, the vote for one in a state is not as powerful the one voting in another state. That is the truth. So, there will always be inequality.

Second, you want an equal and democratic voting process. You don't mind Obama getting the biggest support from the small voter states, in which a vote has much more significant impact on the final decision, but, you do mind if those small votes somehow turn against Obama, since those people also want to use their equally(!) powerful decisions, which is decided by the system. You are okay if the decisions of those small voter states are decided by the racial decisions, but, you are not okay, if the superdelegates want to also use their personal preferences in their decisions.

So, in your opinion, democracy would mean a voter giving up his right, the right given to them by the system, to vote because a group of people force them to do so, not because they believe in the person. What kind of democracy is that? I would like to suggest you to put behind the past related to Iran and move forward, cause giving up your right to decide is not a good democratic system.

[SamSedaei - Huffpost Blogger]

You misunderstood me. I don't advocate taking away superdelegates votes. I just don't believe it is to the best interest of this democracy to allow these superdelegates' votes to count MORE than everyone else. They should have a vote that's just like your vote and my vote. To say that doing so would somehow equate "taking away" their votes for forcing them to vote a certain way misses the point. And you are right in that the "system" allows supers to have a more powerful vote. But that's exactly what I'm criticizing: the system.

I don't think what I'm explaining here is all that complicated: everyone in this party should have an equal say in who should be nominated based on all the available facts. You can get into the debate of whose vote should matter more - i.e. in big states or small states or whatever - in a true democracy, voting rights aren't given in accordance to a predetermined outcome; they are given equally so that they can determine the outcome.

[outnow]

Sam,

Your idea is basically one-man; one-vote within the Democratic primary. The present rules were developed to prevent just that result. The fear was that the "people" would elect a popular candidate who was not properly screened by the elite and/or who did not have the best chance to win in the general election, in the judgment of the big-whigs within the party.

Likewise with the Electoral College.

We do not live in a democracy as such. In fact, the two-party system has dominated American politics for two centuries almost. So? What's new. Maybe this is all news to you but you must study political science and constitutional law and US history to really get a handle on it. Is this false advertising for the U.S. to claim that we have democracy - especially since we spread democracy at the barrel of a rifle? The short answer is: "Yes."
We have a democracy deficit both at home and abroad.

Let's face it, money screams loudest in this country, and, probably all others. If I had enough money I could force you to listen to me night and day. "When Merrill Lynch talks, everyone listens," is the jingle. You could say that money talks, democracy walks. That is the way it is designed in actual practice, a denial of equal protection and procedural due process within the party and within the larger context of the country.

Still, I'd rather be here, everything considered. It sure could be improved though; you are totally correct. keep saying what you are and use your posts as a forum. Organize through grassroots and whatever party you have and through whatever candidate you select. Above all don't be fooled.

[Sundialsvc4]

The so-called "primary" elections are actually not defined in the Constitution. They are put on by the various political parties, which are in fact "corporations," and they are intentionally staged in such a way as to appear to be a bona-fide election.

But the simple truth of the matter is that the outcome of these elections today is determined by money ... by incomprehensibly-large bucket loads of the stuff. A sitting Senator or Congressman will during his or her tenure directly approve or disapprove the spending of trillions of dollars, and for their troubles they will be lavishly bribed every day. This is a process that must not be left to chance: every vote must be carefully bought, and it is.

As the political machines gain more and more control over what used to be a political process, they are tightening their grip to make very certain that the outcome is entirely pre-determined. The Republicans latched on to this early: your one and only choice from that party is John McCain. When the dust settles, the Democrats will either have consolidated into a ticket of Clinton-Obama or, having failed to consolidate in advance, they will have an actual nomination-fight at their convention, split the party into two camps, and lose once again to the only other available choice. Either way, the term "lose" is relative: if there are exactly two horses in the so-called race and you own both of them, this is no more an "election" than any similar show that the Kremlin or Beijing ever put on.

I don't mean to be too cynical when I say matter-of-factly that this IS what we have right now. It's a business, and it's not a business of rebuilding cities or shoring-up highway bridges or providing health care (except to "the rich will live" and not "the poor will die"). It's a business of War, War, and More War to the tune of about $96,000 per second. Nothing ... mark my words, NOTHING ... Else Matters.

This is the hell that General "Ike" Eisenhower saw coming, back in January of 1961, and it is Here. It's the out-of-control metastasizing cancer, and we were not the "alert populace" that Ike warned us we would have to be.

[rwferr]

Had Obama clinched the nomination the superdelegates would not matter. They only matter because he failed to do so and its now a functional tie which somebody has to break in order to get a nominee.

[indie17]

I really like the term 'functional tie', since it ignores the truth. Elections are determined by small percentages quite often in our country. Obama is currently ahead of Clinton by 5.4% of the pledged delegate count. That is no tie -- functional or disfunctiona.

[FreedomLoverX]

Dude, I have been here my whole life, and I couldn't agree with you more. This is a country of immigrants. Let's you and me and all who agree get together and see if we can make a difference.

Still better than Iran, though, eh?

[TIME]

It takes people like you Sam, to help make changes for the better. Immigrants are the life blood of this country, and always have been.
Change takes a LONG time.
There's a saying, "Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't know."
People, rightfully, are afraid of change. Not just because of the unknown, but because of the known. They know politicians and are afraid that changes will be worse than what they already have.
At times there has been a lot of talk about changing our Constitution. I, for one, wish they would leave the Constitution alone. I'm afraid they will just make it worse.
I can't believe (after the 2000 election) that people still think their vote doesn't count. A lot of these conditions of election (superdelegates, winner take all, Electoral College, etc..) would not come into use, if more Americans voted. But certainly, we need election reform of all kinds, including a new standard ballot system.

[OtayPanky]

TIME: There's a saying, "Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't know."People, rightfully, are afraid of change. Not just because of the unknown, but because of the known. They know politicians and are afraid that changes will be worse than what they already have.

===

That was exactly why BushCo 41 decided not to march one more day, take Baghdad, and topple Saddam Hussein.

His brain dead son, OTOH, had no such concerns. Fools rush in, where wise men fear to go.

[outnow]

Sam,

Some people are more equal than others. Corporations are more equal than people.

Our nation was built on slavery, a house torn down by the great Civil War. But this new house, a house built on mirrors, of secret rooms, of hidden passages - indeed, a vastly more subtle and deluding structure - has been built on the same malignant foundation. -Gerry Spence-

"No one is aby a corporate Caligulas hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he is free." -Goethe-

The looming threat of a new fascism arises, the eerie shadow of which already darkens this great land. The new hybrid of politics and economics that seeks world dominance is driven by a gluttonous greed. The power is incalculable. Utterly fabricated to generate profit, it feeds off the people. Profit and money is God. That God is mad.

At the present we are neither a republic nor a democracy. The Rubicon was crossed back in 2000 -2001 by a corporate Caligula. We need reforms to place the interests of the people above the profit motive. These interests are not the same. The people should convene a new Constitutional Convention to create a government immune from the effects of big money.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

"800 people could get together in a room... and outright reverse the final decision of the voters in this country" - Yes, the Democratic Party insiders were pretty darn proud of themselves when they came up with this system too, let me tell you. They thought that they had finally come up with a system which was foolproof in keeping the "crazies" (US) from taking the control of the party from the elite (THEM).

They might have as well have called it "No More George McGoverns". No longer would any upstart dare to take on the line of chosen succession until Senator Obama started the biggest grass roots movement in the history of either party. That's why Senator Clinton is so distraught, it was supposed to be HER turn. That's why aging elitists like Ms. Ferraro are stamping their feet, they've lost control of THEIR party. Only time will tell if they're willing to destroy the village in order to save it at the convention. Stay tuned for "The Splinter at the Pepsi Center" starting August 24th.

[marignymitch]

The U.S. is a republic not a democracy. And it ought to carry a warning label as such. But welcome to America, anyways. And welcome to the sad realities of this benighted nation.

[nik12]

I am not sure I agree with your superdelegate argument. While the general election is about the will of the people, the party nomination process is about the will of the party. And superdelegates only play a part in the party nomination process, not the general election.

The party nomination process can feel like the general election in some ways, because you cannot get elected to the office of President without the resources of either the Democratic or Republican party. With that said, however, party nominations are (and have always been) a construction of political parties; a way for party members to decide who to place the party's resources behind. Who the party supports is for the party to say, and as the Supreme Court has made clear on numerous occasions, individual participation in that process is not a Constitutional requirement and no one has an inalienable right to participate in that decision.

Starting from that understanding, why shouldn't the parties give superdelegates (who are essentially super-party members) a say in the party nomination process? To say these party leaders have no interests in the process other than their own is disingenuous; yes they have their own interests at heart, but their interests are also the various interests of the party.

Also, it is inaccurate to say that the superdelegates monopolize the party nomination process; they cannot do that technically on their own. They are all-important this year only because the results from the various primaries and caucuses have been close. And in close elections, someone or something always makes the difference. Rather than superdelegates, the nomination could have turned on American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico--places that cannot vote in the general election. Would that be a more equitable result? I don't know. What I do know though is that the party has given these places a vote in the nomination process, just as it has the superdelegates. Moreover, and this is my overall point, the party has every right to do these things, because it is the party's decision.

[SamSedaei - Huffpost Blogger]

Your argument is unconvincing for several reasons:
1) while you say that the nomination is about the will of "the party," the party consists of people. So the nomination process is somewhat like the general election in the sense that we're selecting who we want to be president. The difference is we're just going to have to vote for this person twice: once in the primary and once in the general election;
2) I don't talk about the constitution. What I do make a case for is that regardless of what the constitution says, this country cannot claim to be democratic if one of the two major parties rejects the will of the majority of its primary voters and overturns their choice for president.
3) "why shouldn't the parties give superdelegates (who are essentially super-party members) a say in the party nomination process?" First of all, I argue that there should be no such unelected "super" party members to begin with. The question isn't about whether they should have a say. The question is whether they should have a bigger say than everyone else. Just the notion that you think it's okay to have "super party-members" is really quite sad. One of the superdelegates is 21, and no one has presented a case for why this person's vote should count more than votes of 15,000-20,000 primary voters - many of whom include senior citizens, leaders, CEOs, activists, doctors, lawyers, etc.
4) In close elections, what makes the final decision is the difference in the number of votes, just like in not-co-close elections. Close elections are not reason to reverse the will of majority. And the fact that those places in the Caribbeans cannot vote in the general election is probably one more item I would add to this list of things that are wrong with the American system.
If we support the ability of certain - and some unelected - "super" members to have a bigger say than everyone else, we will set precedent for the kind of government where people's voices will no longer be a determining factor, but only something to "consider." That's wrong, and going down that path will make any claim by Americans to have a genuine democracy irrelevant.

[DiatribeTX]

This is not a democracy... it's a constitutional republic, which provides a cushion from an irrational mob rule, which would result from a direct democracy. I'm not a big fan of a two party system, which seems to encourage a form of cronyism... you rub my back, I'll rub yours... but at least they're umm... touching each other. It's definitely not perfect, governance never will be... but at least this one has the mechanisms allowing it to evolve... or devolve. Articles like this need to constantly remind us that the government is ours... and is a reflection of our collective decisions.

[resonate]

Yeah we do have the option to evolve our government in the US but it requires the people use their voice a bit more then they are now. For example you mentioned the two party system... Sorry but isn't it about f-ing time we got another party in the US. People aren't just left of center or right of center. 3rd parties have been winning big in elections around the world that look to be more democratic then the fraud fueled ones we have here in the US at the moment. Our democracy has some huge problems and loop holes being exploited by a greedy few in the form of political cronies and corporations and its about time the people did something about it. This country was based off of people doing just that. Come on America! SPEAK UP! We are so lucky to have such a diverse group of people living here that we have no lack of perspectives to keeps ourselves in check with.

Thanks for the article, much appreciated.

[standforpeace]

This is one of the best posts I've ever read on Huff. It has been agonizing to watch so many Democrats who were bitterly and righteously opposed to the theft of the 2000 election so willing to let the Super Delegates overturn the will of the voters in the primaries/caucuses if it means that the candidate of their choice gets the nomination. Their lame ass reason for their anti-democratic position is that the Super Delegates are written into the rules of the Democratic Party. To that I say so what? There was a time not that long ago when Democratic elites in the South set up nominating rules that did not allow Blacks to participate in the Democratic primaries. Thankfully, the American community rejected those rules. Now Democratic elites have established another set of anti-democratic rules. This time they have reserved for themselves the power to overturn the demonstrated will of the voters. It's once again time for all Democrats who know the difference between right and wrong to denounce and reject this anti-Democratic practice regardless which candidate we support.

[DaNang65]

Sam: Thank you for coming. America always has and will need people with the energy and experience you bring. I'm sorry you are so disappointed to learn that our democracy is neither perfect nor pure. What institution is? Perhaps your dissatisfaction would be lessened by the realization that the nomination process is one held within a political party, i.e., within a private "club" which decides which candidate they choose to offer to the general public as their standard bearer. The candidate might be compared to a product offered in the market place, the public is free to "purchase" or not. A producer would be well advised to consider the wants and needs of her consumer, but ultimately the producer retains control of the decision making process. The superdelegates are roughly analogous to a board of directors, a very large, very diverse board at that. They achieve their status by demonstrated commitment to the ongoing values of the party, not the passing interests of any particular campaign season.

[berensma]

Thank you for that post. The problems with our democracy obviously go back much further than 2000, but that really was a turning point for many of us in terms of seeing our government completely ignore the democratic process. A friend of mine at the time was applying for his citizenship -- on the test, the question was asked, "Who elects the president of the U.S." Among the four multiple choice responses were "the electoral college" and "the Supreme Court." So many people answered "the Supreme Court" that year that they needed to invalidate that question.

It is really great that you, as an outsider becoming an insider, can provide this lucid commentary. I don't think those of us who are upset about what is happening tend to forget or deny what we have seen going on, but too often it is easier for us to put in the context of being related solely to one man and his administration, when in fact the problem is much, much larger than that.

Many of us are paying close attention to this problem, and are doing what we can to reverse its course. Let us just hope we can be successful.

[LeeFromVA]

The Clinton philosophy has always been that regardless of what you do or say, you'll always be able to make up for it later, to smooth things over with those you've offended. I think this is one case where their luck would run out. It reminds me of the Bush playbook of sticking to your base, winning with about 50 percent, and governing a deeply divided nation. Why would we want that again?