Sunday night is family dinner night, and it is something I always enjoy. Usually, my family sits down to a home-cooked meal. But, on special occasions, we go out to eat. My sister was in town last weekend, and Bartilino’s was having their soft opening, so we decided to check it out.

As we began to settle into small talk, I looked up. To my surprise, I saw that our booth was catty-corner to St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay’s.

I was suddenly overcome by a sense of awe. No, I was not star-struck; I was sitting a dozen feet away from a superdelegate.
I whispered this to my sister. She wore an expression that often surfaces when the election process becomes the topic of conversation.

Then, she asked the dreaded question: “What’s a superdelegate”

I quickly explained that these primaries that the states have are for normal delegates. In the Republican races, half are winner-takes-all. In the Democratic races, delegates are allotted according to the percentage of the state a candidate carries. However, there are also superdelegates, like mayors and senators, who cast their votes at the Democratic National Convention according to their own consciences.

It then dawned on me that this mayor, this man, had more clout in the selection process for the Democratic presidential candidate than most of the population of St. Louis, combined.

I then imagined Slay being wined and dined by representatives of Hilary Clinton’s campaign (whom he is supporting), with his vote brokered in the haze of a smoke-filled room. Of course, that is probably not how it went down, but it did raise a very important question: Is this process fair?

No. Not at all.

Right now, Barack Obama has the popular vote.

I know, I know, there are at least two dozen primaries and caucases to go. I know that tides tend to turn in politics. As our salads came, I realized that if Obama won the popular vote, but Slay (or some other superdelegate) decided that his loyalty remained with Clinton, she could win the nomination without winning the popular vote.

I was then transported back to the year 2000. George W. Bush won the Electoral College majority, while Al Gore won the popular vote.

In one of the most humiliating acts I have ever seen in politics, Al Gore sat on the floor of the Senate and declared that, after a recount, his Republican opponent had won the presidential election. A little part of me died as the second Bush dynasty began under a cloud of unfairness.

I am in no way saying that Clinton will do the same damage that Dubya has. In fact, if she were to win the nomination, I would support her, however begrudgingly.

But, if she were to win the nomination because of a flaw in the voting process (and, let’s be real, the flaws are quite numerous), I would raise hell. I would get just as riled up if Obama won because of the same flaw.

So, will Slay follow his constituents, or will he get caught up in the political game? I trust in superdelegates’ judgment, and that, most of the time, they want what they believe is best for our country.

But in the end, superdelegates answer to us, the people. That is what this election should be about: An end to cronyism and the return of power to the people. Americans are voting in numbers.

In 2000 and 2004, I was upset with my fellow Americans for choosing a corrupt, narrow-minded, dishonest cowboy for president, but I believe that they have grown up in this eight-year baptism of fire known as the Bush Administration.
I guess I can only hope that as my faith in the American people has grown, my faith in the election process will not disappear.

George Caputa is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences.