Their argument that the superdelegates is undemocratic.

[LiberalFighter]

5. I agree. They are more likely to be privy to critical information that is needed.

But more importantly, even the voters are likely to change their mind in who to support after they have already voted and circumstances have changed. The superdelegates have the flexibility to change their support because they are not locked into a possible bad decision.

What happens if a top candidate dies in the middle of the primaries? Or decides to drop out for personal reasons? Or they are found to be ineligible? Or has a medical condition that calls into question a candidate being able to handle the position? With any of those situations that top candidate somehow will end up with the most pledged delegates. Getting rid of the superdelegates would leave the Democratic Party in a quandary. Every federal elected official and state party officers would run from that candidate. They would not expend any energy to help get that person elected.

We have a situation similar to that in our district. The voters decided to elect an unqualified candidate that has mental issues just because of his name in the primary. Unfortunately, there is little that the local party can do to have his name removed from the ballot. Because of is lack of qualifications the party will not make any effort to get him elected.