The only reason Bernie is still in the nomination discussion is because of Superdelegates (Math!)
Because superdelegates are unpledged Bernie and his team can insist they still have a path by convincing these voters to switch to him (They won't, but that is a different story.). If superdelegates were actually forced to be pledged to either the state winner or proportional to the state results, meaning they can't change their votes based on personal desires, Bernie would actually be in a lot worse shape.
To get started, the states and territories that have voted have 543 superdelegates between them.
If supers for those states were allocated to the winner of each state (I.e pledged), Hillary would currently have 2,096 delegates to Bernie's 1,601. Clinton would be only 288 delegates away from securing the nomination, which, thanks to proportional allocation of regular delegates, Clinton would be guaranteed to achieve on June 7th even if she loses every remaining state.
So how about proportional allocation? That has to be better for Bernie, right? Well, not really.
Proportionally, Clinton would be at 2,009 delegates versus Sanders at 1,688. Clinton would be 375 delegates away from clinching, and with proportional allocation for all delegates including supers, she would, again, be guaranteed to secure the nomination on June 7th.
So, ironically, the current system is the only one that actually gives Bernie a chance at a "contested" convention. Every other scenario that people are grumbling should happen ("Supers need to represent the will of the people!"
would result in Bernie losing without equivocation on the 7th. It is only because supers are unpledged that he can even pretend that the nomination fight will last until the convention.
= new reply since forum marked as read
All that time typing.. All that energy,, and...
