Please help me answer this question.

[Bethesda Home]

I volunteer to answer the phone at a nearby Democratic County office so it will be manned on the weekend. Saturday 7/12 12:00 to 4:00 was my monthly assigned time.

I received this (paraphrased) question 7 times. And it came from people I know (some of them) to be staunch Democrats:

"Why does our party let 'unelected elites' (sometimes they said 'unelected delegates') pick our nominee".

And a lot of them said that most of those people would probably be elected if they ran and supported a particular candidate.

That was about the same number, more or less, since I started doing this in 11/07.

I've talked to others and they say that this question is asked frequently.
My standard answer is, "Someone in the party proposed this and the DNC agreed. I don't know why".
I've asked this question to party officers but have not had a reply yet.

What would you tell these people?

Disclosure: I'm (still) a Hillary supporter but I will vote for Obama.

[ColbertWatcher]

1. Speak to your volunteer coordinator.

This person should be able to help you with questions like that.

[Bethesda Home]

5. That was the first person I asked.

She didn't know either.

She said she would call the DNC on Monday.

[EFerrari]

2. That's a loaded question. Delegates don't choose our nominee

until after we've finished the primary process where most of us vote for our choice.

And I'd ask those people if they were planning to work election protection in the Fall because we need all the help we can get. Their concern makes them perfect candidates.

[pnorman]

3. Here's another Hillary supporter, who seems to have had the same problem with the selection process:

But she seems to have "resolved" it to her own satisfaction.

pnorman
Full disclosure: Starting around mid-March, I became by degrees, a committed Obama supporter.

[crispini]

4. Are you talking about the so-called "superdelegates"?

Let me begin by saying that I don't think anything you can say is going to convince these callers through a logical argument. I've had similar conversations about our Texas primacaucus system. IMO, the people in these conversations are operating from a deep sense of feeling disenfranchised. And they are angry about it. People are used to the "one-voter, one-vote" model in our general elections. They see this as the essence of 'democracy.' And they are pretty much just mad about "the system."

For people who feel like this, I would simply encourage them to express themselves (people just want to vent), and write it down and promise to pass their comments on, and then perhaps come up with some other channel to direct them to. I'm not sure what it's going to be -- that will vary so much by caller. Perhaps encourage them to work for a local candidate? These people really need our support this year.

For the people who are interested in this in an academic sense, some history here: It came about in the 80s, when the party wanted to add back in some voice for party leaders and elected officials. Party primaries, not being general elections, do not fall under federal election code. If the Democratic Party wanted to choose its presidential nominee by putting all of their nominees name in a hat and picking one, it would certainly be legal to do so. Over the years, the nominee selection process has in fact gotten more and more open to the "general public." (I honestly don't know how they were selected 100 years ago, but you can bet that it was MUCH more centered around "party bosses" and "insiders" than it is today.)

Why should party chairs and elected officials have ANY stake in our nominee's selection? Well, arguably, they have a lot on the line. A presidential nominee in effect becomes the de facto chair of the party. Look at Obama moving the DNC to Chicago -- that's huge. And it's vitally important to the future of the party that we pick a good one.

Now, do I think that argument is going to cut any ice with your callers who are angry? No, not at all. Honestly, for those people, I'd just empathize and take notes. There's not much else you can do.

[elocs]

6. I would tell these people that Senator Clinton has conceded the nomination to Obama

and that she clearly supports his being elected president. Since she was a close second in the primary process and she is satisfied, then so should they be also.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because even though your post looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, I will assume it is a swan despite its concern.