I’ve been watching the debate raging in the media over the possibility that superdelegates might have the final say on who stands as the Democrat candidate for president. For those of you that don’t know the history, the Democrat Party created superdelegates some decades ago to gain more control over their nomination process, allegedly to prevent candidates outside the mainstream of the party from getting the nomination - regardless of the candidate’s popular support. This has not been a problem for many cycles, but the Law of Unintended Consequences has finally worked its perverse wonders.

The really interesting part is the potential for hipocrisy this systems creates. The parties can choose the way they select their canditates at will, or so the courts have said, but there just might be an alligator to confront below the still waters if these superdelegates choose unwisely. As you probably recall from two cycles ago, vocal cries of foul went up from the Left when the current president was sworn in without a majority of the popular vote. One wonders if voters will hear similar cries of illigimacy if the superdelegates choose the candidate with fewer popular votes?

Perhaps this is why Democrats are busily trying to rewrite the rules in the middle of the game….

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Global American Discourse, The Pink Flamingo, , and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 6th, 2008 and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.