Siding with Jesse


I'm starting to worry. I learned the other day that I share the same sentiments as Jesse Jackson on a particular issue.

This past Sunday's Globe ran a story detailing the history of how the Democrat party has picked it's Presidential nominee since 1968. According to the article, in 1968 Hubert Humphrey won the nomination without winning any primaries, literally leading to rioting in the streets outside the convention. Over the next several elections, committees were formed, racial, gender and age quotas were put in place and winner-take-all primaries were virtually outlawed. Meanwhile, rather than having party insiders - many of whom are elected officials - compete against their constituents to be the actual delegates to the convention, the number of free passes ("superdelegates") has steadily increased, to the point where about 20% of the delegates today are these "superdelegates."

So now we have Obama and Clinton neck-and-neck. There have been stories about campaign donations flowing from the Obama and Clinton camps to the campaign coffers of these superdelegates. There are even rumors of efforts to sway delegates already "pledged" by way of election results. (Seems according to Democrat party rules, delegates aren't technically required to actually vote for who they're pledged to.)

So how is it that I find myself agreeing with Jesse Jackson? The Globe story ends with the following sentiment of his: "The same people who complain about Electoral College strong-arming can't very well have a de facto Electoral College." Exactly.