Superdelegates face unclear political line

By Roujin Mozaffarimehr

With roughly seven months left until the election of a new president, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, recently announced that the party's superdelegates have until July 1 to decide which candidate they plan to support for the Democratic presidential ticket.

Superdelegates are basically unpledged party leaders, and their vote at the Democratic National Convention will inevitably decide the Democratic nominee.

The race for the nomination has been ridiculously close between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, which puts superdelegates in a very powerful position.

The Democratic Party does not have a clear front-runner for the nomination. Despite what the popular vote chooses in the remaining primary elections, they are probably not going to decide the Democratic nominee.

Are these superdelegates going to choose their nominee based on the interests and wants of their respective constituents?

In other words, are these delegates going to vote the way that the majority of the country voted?

Superdelegate and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico has pledged his support for Barack Obama. His Democratic constituency, however, voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

Richardson has been very vocal about the responsibility of superdelegates casting their votes in the interest of their constituents.

Is there not a conflict of interest here?

Isn't it Richardson's job and responsibility to act in the interest of those who support him?

Don't get me wrong, I love Obama. I've got the T-shirt and the bumper sticker to prove it, and I'm always ecstatic about a new Obama supporter. But Richardson's pledge raises an important question in regard to the way nominations are made in relation to the popular vote. What's the point of having primaries and caucuses for us to vote in if the superdelegates from our respective states do not vote the way we do?

In the case of Richardson, it's is important to look at the state of New Mexico's voting record.

New Mexico has a history of close races, and the primary race between Clinton and Obama was no different.

Clinton won by a margin of about only 2,000 votes.

What is even more important to note is the message Richardson has been vocalizing for the last few months: the importance of a clean campaign.

Clinton has clearly been much more involved in negative campaign tactics, so it may have been a bit more hypocritical for Richardson to support Clinton over Obama.

So where does this leave us? This is the first time the Democratic National Convention is using superdelegates.

We have no history to look back on and no previous experience to draw conclusions from.

I'm concerned. Politics behind closed doors makes me wary of the process. Putting this much power in the hands of so few people forces the candidates to basically sell themselves to a select few for the vote.

Will these superdelegates be swayed by the incessant phone calls from Clinton and Obama, or will they stay true to their constituents?

I'm not sure.

I hope that our votes have some impact on the way the superdelegates make their decisions, but, more importantly, I hope that this process does not challenge the legitimacy of the election.

Roujin Mozaffarimehr is a senior political science and Italian double major.