Every election cycle, family members call to ask how they should vote on propositions and for which candidates. Our readers frequently ask the LA Progressive to prepare a “progressive slate.” They know we work hard to stay on top of issues while also keeping tabs on the positions candidates have taken. That requires a lot of effort but staying informed is essential for democracy to work. Thomas Jefferson said, “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.”

We agree. We like freedom. So using our energy to educate ourselves and others seemed like a worthwhile expenditure of time and money.

Well, turns out, that expended energy may have all been for naught. In other words, keeping tabs on the goings on in the political sphere could have been a big waste of time, especially in light of the transcripts uncovered by Branko Marcetic, an investigative journalist from In These Times. Marcetic has uncovered documents that reveal the true reason that the Democratic Party instituted the superdelegate system. It appears that the intention, all along, was to take power away from “the people” and put it into the hands of a concentrated few.

According to In These Times, the newly uncovered documents reveal that the Democratic Party’s goal was to prevent “outsider” candidates from getting the nomination, and to reduce the role of primary voters.

At the National Archives, In These Times reporter, Branko Marcetic, dug up the transcripts from the 1981/1982 Hunt Commission in which Democratic Party officials talk openly about their rationale for instituting superdelegates.

The story on what the documents show is here.

In These Times has published more than 10,000 words of excerpts, along with photos of dozens of original documents, all of which can be accessed here.

Said Community Editor of In These Times, Miles Kampt-Lassin, “By making the original documents available to the public for the first time, In These Times is providing news outlets, experts, and readers the opportunity to see for themselves the origins of what has become a deeply contentious system, at a time when more and more people are calling for reform.”

So, while it is clear that neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton will have the required number of pledged delegates to secure the Democratic Party nomination at the convention, corporate media continues to act as if Hillary Clinton already has the nomination in the bag. Perhaps that’s because she does—and always did.

Think Bernie Sanders won by a landslide in the state of Washington? Who would guess that the 74-21 victory for Sanders in that state means nothing to the superdelegates who have all either declared support for Clinton or declined to state. The same is true for the state of Colorado where Sanders had a 41-25 victory. These are just two examples of states where volunteers and voters put  a lot of time and energy into the process only to have the unpledged delegates overrule the majority.

These 712 or so superdelegates also known as “unpledged delegates” can change their mind all the way up to the convention.  But if party leaders have it their way, the superdelegate vote is already secured — that was done a long time ago.

In spite of all the work and planning that went into the primaries, caucuses, house parties, fundraisers, blogs, marches, canvassing, and crowdfunding—it appears that the decision was made for us long before the campaign season even began.  What a waste of time.