Democrats delay change to convention superdelegates

[Sophia4]

125. It is corrupt because it places one person in a much more powerful position

when it comes to deciding who will vote for and choose a candidate than thousands maybe in some states like California even millions of other people. That kind of power is corruption in a democracy.

It corrupts, spoils, the very intent and fabric of democracy.

It is the very essence of corruption.

It isn't just money that is corrupt. Pretending that a system is democratic when in reality a few select, chosen, superior people can easily put their thumbs or their votes on the scale to tilt it in a direction they want it to go is pure corruption. The money follows the choice candidate. The money flows to the candidate and then in many cases to those who made his or her choice possible by putting the right super delegates, the right votes, into the system.

That is why the super delegates are in their very being, corrupt no matter how wonderful they are as individuals. The concept is corruption.

And the concept makes smart voters suspicious of the candidate. Super delegates are one of the traditions in the Democratic Party that drives voters away. And that happens even when they don't really change the outcome of the nomination process. It is a sick, unfair, institution. It places a thumb on the scales institution that makes the Democratic Party look corrupt and possibly just a sham to voters who understand it and who blame it for their candidate's loss. The blaming may be completely wrong. The super delegates may have affected or changed absolutely nothing about the outcome. But the fact of having super delegates demonstrates a readiness within the management of the Democratic Party to ignore the will of the Democratic voters, and that is the problem.

Why have super delegates if they don't significantly change the outcome of the nomination process?

If it is just an honor and it means nothing, why have it? The elected officials of the Party can be invited to conventions without making them delegates. There is no need for super delegates.

Why are super delegates appointed if they don't corrupt the process of nominating the candidate so that the status quo in the Party is maintained?

I think they are an insurance policy to maintain the power of the hired leaders of the Democratic Party. And that is horrible. We need to be able to make changes at the top when the voters want it. Anything else is a form of oligarchy that weakens the Democratic Party.