Democrats and the New Jim Crow

Imagine an election for president where votes cast at the ballot box mean next to nothing. While activist groups gripe about long lines and the return of Jim Crow whenever someone has to pull out a photo ID, it’s the Democratic Party primary that deserves scorn for disenfranchising voters this year. With Hillary stacking up the super-delegates even while Bernie Sanders keeps winning, why should anyone bother voting?

This is nothing new. The Democrat Party has a long history of disenfranchising its party members and voters through Jim Crow laws that disenfranchised the vast majority of African Americans. Jim Crow was invented by Democrats and administered by Democrats.

While the hyperbole of Jim Crow is tossed at Republicans who seek to bring integrity to elections, it is the Democrats practicing systematic disenfranchisement again in 2016. Bernie Sanders won seven of the last eight Democratic primaries or caucuses but he is no closer to winning the Democratic Party nomination.

Consider New Hampshire, where Bernie Sanders won by 22 points with the voters, but tied or lost the state because the party leaders control the winner through super-delegates. Fifteen percent of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention are super-delegates, party leaders, insiders, and elected officials who may vote for whomever they like without regard to the popular vote, and nearly all of them support Hillary Clinton. Whoever wins the super-delegates is on a fast track to winning the Democrat nomination, voters be damned.

Campaign poster for Hiester Clymer (D-PA)

Contrast this with the Republican nomination process.

Republican delegates, with very few exceptions, are bound to vote for the winner as chosen by the voters of their state on the first ballot of the convention. There will be no “super-delegates” in Cleveland. If Donald Trump wins the required majority of 1237 delegates, Donald Trump is the nominee, period.

Efforts to disenfranchise ordinary Democrats do not stop with super-delegates, however.