The ignorance of Superdelegates is astounding. We lost 49-1 TWICE in little more than a decade

[LiberalFighter]

40. It opens up more spots for party activists that otherwise would be taken

by those now superdelegates.

It allows superdelegates to still be part of the process.

It serves as a safety measure if an event occurs requiring their vote. They are also the mediators if a situation needs to be resolved.

Democratic Party leaders say new rules adopted for this year's convention have fulfilled their purpose and created a more stable and predictable nominating process that favors mainstream candidates and policies.

This judgment was reinforced by a New York Times poll of the convention delegates that found that the new rules produced a group of ''superdelegates'' who were older, more experienced, more moderate and more loyal to the party than the delegates chosen by primaries and caucuses. (NYT, 7/15/84)

would restore to the convention flexibility and an ability to respond to changed circumstances. (CPN committee report, via NYT 3/27/82)

Party officials insisted that most members of Congress would not want to be delegates if they had to run for the job, and that the only way to bring them back into the process of nominating a candidate and writing a party platform was to reserve delegate seats for them. That was done in 1982 by a special commission headed by Gov. James Hunt of North Carolina. (NYT, 12/22/83)

"We're about the business of winning again,'' he said, in describing the objective of the commission, which is to present recommendations for action by the national committee early next year. (NYT, 9/25/81)

So, rather than to override the will of the electorate, superdelegates were created in some sense to enforce it in elections whose results were skewed by odd delegate allocations or weak multi-way fields that would allow a fringe candidate to win a plurality.

Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina, chairman of the commission formed last July to draw up the proposals that were adopted today, insisted that despite the changes the Democrats would remain ''the only major political party in the nation that is truly open.'' He said the changes were necessary if the Democrats were to be controlled by the interests of their party as a whole and not its factions. (NYT, 3/27/82)

There is not any sense that superdelegates have a mandate to express what is essentially their own personal preference for President; rather their duty is to look out for the best interests of the Party.

During the numerous discussions that have taken place on the subject of super delegates, the notion that super delegates can vote for whoever they wish is continually raised. Let me make the best counter-point to this argument as simple as possible:

DNC rules do not obligate super delegates to thwart the popular will of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers. Just as DNC rules allow for super delegates to thwart the popular will of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers, those same rules allow for super delegates to ratify the popular will of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers. Both are well within the rules. The decision is up to the super delegates.

The difference is that if super delegates decide to ratify the popular will of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers, then super delegates are upholding both the rules of the DNC and the principle of democracy. In other words, voting to thwart the popular will upholds our rules, but not our values, while voting to ratify the popular will upholds both our rules and our values.

Super delegates should uphold both our rules and our values by ratifying the popular will. That is as simple as I can make it. Source: Chris Bowers