Time to Vote... Or Is It?

We all know about it. We've seen it. We're probably getting tired of it... but it's too important to not have an opinion about it one way or another. It's another presidential election. It'll be either Clinton or Obama vs. McCain. It very likely will be the most important election in decades, so it's extremely important to make your voice heard...

Or is it?

In Ohio, there is a growing movement of people who are deciding not to vote this year. And why?

Because of the superdelegates.

Hmm...

For the Democratic Party, the party's nominee needs to receive the highest total number of delegates and superdelegates. The total number of delegates makes up 4/5 of the total number, while superdelegates makes up 1/5. The delegates are distributed based on the number of votes received by each person. However, the superdelegates are different. According to Wikipedia, "the superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials. They are free to support any candidate for the nomination."

So what does that mean?

It means that if you compile all of the votes this year, they won't be counted as a whole, but as 4/5 of the total. An entire 20% is dedicated to people who are considered more special than us "regular" voters and probably don't care much about our votes. The superdelegates, who are not placed into their superdelegate position by the voters, can vote for whoever they want to.

Simplifying more?

In a close election, our current or former elected officials will decide the Democratic Party's nominee... NOT the voters.

For the most part, Clinton and Obama are running a pretty close race with Obama in the lead. If it were up to ONLY regular voters/delegates, Obama would likely win. However, because of the weight of the superdelegates, Clinton may actually win the race, because the superdelegates consist mostly of "old school" officials.

The argument to not vote goes kind of like this. The race is already close. Polls and votes indicates that Obama leads across the country by a few percentage points. But the weight of the superdelegates is so heavy, that it won't matter what the people are actually saying. Those who are choosing not to vote are choosing not to do so, because the weight of the superdelegates is undemocratic and defeats the purpose of voting. Is it really fair that our votes goes TOWARD the delegate distribution, while an individual superdelegate EQUALS one vote of the overall count? Even if the vote is close, even if Obama or Hillary is selected as the Democratic candidate by ACTUAL VOTERS by 1 vote, the people's voice should count for 100%, not 80%. Period. 20% of the people's voice should not be people who may not represent their interests and possibly change the voice of the voters. It would be like Al Gore winning the popular vote, but not winning the presidency. So the people who support the movement will not support the voting process, and possibly not the candidate ultimately selected by the superdelegates.

Makes sense... but...

The other side of the argument goes like this. The superdelegates makes it even MORE important that we vote. The delegate process was revised in 1968, because of how the delegates were selected. If we don't vote and make our voices heard, AND if our candidate is selected because of the superdelegate votes, the possibility of further revisions in the future would be less effective, because of the "lack" of participation by the voters. If you want change, regarding candidate or process, make your voice heard by voting. Otherwise, you have no reason to complain. Your candidate may not win the election this year because of the way the system works, but you make changes with your vote.

Also makes sense.

I'm torn about who to vote for and may take the high road and not vote for different reasons (not crazy about either one... I kinda like "none of the above"). But regardless, this is definitely a different way of deciding if your vote matters...