[The Times, U.K.]

 

 

Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Germany

America's Democratic

Primaries: Transparent

as 'Theory of Relativity'

 

"Until a few weeks ago, I though myself fairly well-versed in American electoral laws. … So what is my current state of knowledge?: The nominating procedure used by Democrats is as transparent as a combination of American football rules and the theory of relativity. … It's interesting to note that even Americans don't know any better."

 

By Dieter Degler

                            

 

Translated By Ulf Behncke

                                             

February 14, 2008

 

Germany - Sueddeutsche Zeitung - Original Article (German)

Until a few weeks ago, I thought myself fairly well-versed in American electoral rules. I knew in a general way how the primaries and caucuses worked, that Democrats and Republicans have vastly different rules for nominating a presidential candidate, and I even knew about the superdelegates.

 

But since I began taking in the exciting duel between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I've learned something new every day. So what is my current state of knowledge?: The  nominating procedure used by Democrats is as transparent as a combination of American football rules and the theory of relativity.

 

It's interesting to note that even Americans don't know any better. Those who surfed through major media election-campaign Web sites after the Potomac-Primaries this week learned something astonishing. Indeed, while almost everyone agrees that Obama is now on the rise and Clinton is on the defensive, we were told this: CNN announced 1253 delegates for Obama and 1211 for Clinton; The New York Times sees Obama ahead of Clinton with 916 to 885; from CBS, the man from Illinois leads with 1251 to 1185; and finally the AP (as well as the commendable site www.realclearpolitics.com) has Obama marginally ahead of the New York Senator, with 1210 delegates to her 1188.

 

The fact that everyone has arrived at differing results reflects the peculiarities of the process. In many states, or example, the primaries only determine the delegates to be sent to the Party convention, which will be in Denver at the end of August. It will only be then that they cast decisive ballots for a nominee.

It follows that the outcomes of these delegate-elections are still up in the air and can only be estimated. And so it may fall on the 796 superdelegates in Denver to decide which candidate will go up against Republican John McCain.

 

This exclusive political caste is made up of Democratic members of Congress, governors, former presidents and party leaders; they are not bound to any vote and are entirely independent. On the positive side, one might view them as a concentration of accumulated experience, Democratic members and former members of the power structure; sceptics are more likely refer to this venerable group, "big wigs."

 

A BIT UNDEMOCRATIC

 

If the race continues to be as close and exciting, both candidates might have a photo finish in Denver. In that case, the role of the superdelegates, which represent about 20 percent of the total of 4049 delegates, will be of crucial importance. If Obama is slightly ahead, they could turn the table in favor of Clinton - and vice versa.

WORLDMEETS

 

This part of the nominating procedure, says CBS commentator Josh Landis, is “a bit undemocratic." The voices of those who voted in the primaries may "under certain conditions not be worth as much as they believed.”

 

And since it may fall on them to nominate the Party's standard bearer, campaign activists for both presidential hopefuls have been trying to woo superdelegates to join their side for months. The cards still seem better for Hillary Clinton: She and her husband are clearly better-connected to Washington's political establishment than her rival Obama. They all know each other, and after the election they all want to be around when power and its benefits are redistributed.

But with each new primary win, two main concerns are building in the party: On the one hand, it would be unappetizing if Obama were to arrive in Denver as the biggest vote-winner, only to have the party declare Clinton the victor. On the other, there is an increasing number of arguments, even if Clinton were ahead by a small margin, to appoint Obama to the top spot.

WORLDMEETS

 

AN INEVITABLE DILEMMA

 

There even seems to be growing suspicion among Washington dignitaries that Obama would have an even better chance going up against Republican McCain. Either way - it appears that whoever ends up the candidate will confront this burden during the general election.

 

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, concerned that this has already led to a substantial weakening of his party in its confrontation with Republicans, considers this dilemma inevitable. To be sure, this could be the lesser of two evils. In the lead-up to the Party Convention, if the personal preferences of the superdelegates seem to balance out those of the elected delegates, it could mean a "brokered convention" for the Democrats.

WORLDMEETS.US

 

This is nothing but high-stakes horse trading during which the party leadership brings about an arrangement between the competitors.

 

SEE ALSO ON THIS SUBJECT:

 

Rue 89, France

Instead of Primaries,
U.S. Would Be Better
Off 'Drawing Straws!'

http://worldmeets.us/rue89000009.shtml

 

NRC Handelsblad, The Netherlands

U.S. Primary System

Is 'Unfair'; and Has

'Significant Flaws' …

http://worldmeets.us/nrchandelsblad000083.shtml

 

 

 

 

 

CLICK HERE FOR GERMAN VERSION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WORLDMEETS.US Posted February 23, 3:00pm]