Whose version of democracy will be served?

What is a political party, if not the very citizens

who vote beneath its banner?

Democrats are asking themselves that question as caucuses and primaries roll on dramatically toward the selection of a presidential nominee. The imperatives of the party apparatus – an entity arguably distinct from the rank and file membership – is a good subject for civic discussion as the role of so-called “superdelegates” in the upcoming national convention shifts into focus.

The “superdelegates” – approximately 800 Democratic Party officials and operatives who will help select the party’s nominee at the August convention in Denver, but whose votes aren’t bound by the popular results in their own primaries or caucuses – are in the news a lot these days, by virtue of the unusually competitive race between New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Many have already committed to supporting one candidate or the other; others remain on the fence, while at least a few have switched their allegiance. As reported in today’s issue, 1st District Congressman Jay Inslee is among the 17 Washington power brokers being courted for his support at the convention, a superdelegate by virtue of his elected office. (Republicans are unencumbered by such a debate, by virtue of a smaller allotment of unpledged delegates, the “winner take all” allocation in many states, and the bold emergence of presumptive nominee John McCain.)

For Democrats, there’s a civics lesson in the evolution of their nomination process. Dissatisfied with perceived “smoke-filled room” picks, the national party after 1968 put more nominating clout into the hands of its registered voters; some years later, dissatisfied with that arrangement, a class of “superdelegates” was created to reassert the party organization’s control. This year’s campaign between Clinton and Obama reveals an uneasy dynamic between popular results – who “the people” want as their nominee, as expressed through caucuses and primaries – and the overall goals and interests of The Party.

Interestingly, Jay Inslee grafted himself onto the Clinton campaign last June, endorsing the senator and earning a position as co-chair of her Energy and Environmental Task Force when serious challengers looked unlikely. (Ironically, the keyword in Inslee’s statement at that time – “change” – has since been thoroughly appropriated by Sen. Clinton’s opponent.) The island’s congressman nonetheless now says he’ll remain non-committal until the convention is closer. We won’t presume to tell him how to cast his nominating vote, though a letter elsewhere on this page suggest that others are glad to. But we will note that a week ago, islanders of both Democratic and Republican stripes turned out to caucus in unprecedented numbers, expressing their commitment to and hope for our nation’s future. It was a profound experience for citizens in a state whose relevance in national primaries is usually blunted by earlier outcomes elsewhere. The high turnout was a credit to this community’s values of citizen awareness and engagement.

Was that turnout for naught if free-agent delegates follow their own leanings, rather than those of the voters in their district? And if so, will the participatory democracy espoused by the parties and embraced by its members really be served?

Again: Just what is a political party? Heavy questions for a heady political season.