What exactly is a super delegate? A super delegate is a delegate to the Democratic national convention that has a vote in deciding the Democratic presidential nominee. However, unlike most delegates, the super delegates don't vote to represent a primary or a caucus. These super delegates are usually current or former party officials. To me, this seems like a rediculous concept that may even deprive the people the candidate they actually chose in the primaries. Today I read a startling article on yahoo!news. An analyst wrote that even though Obama is ahead in pledged delegates from the primaries, but even if he won every delegate from here on out, he would not have enough to secure the presidential nomination. This troubles me, because our future is in the hands of these so-called super delegates. Why are their votes more important than the average U.S. citizen? I feel as though we are getting short-changed. The analyst said himself that there is no rhyme or reason to the selection of the nominee by the delegates. He said that some choose based on who had won more primaries, as where others choose their candidate by who they believe has a better chance to win the presidential election. I don't understand how their opinions can outweigh the opinions of the American citizens. This system of super delegates seems like an outdated method in need of revision. I believe that this system, much like the electoral college in the actual election, hinder the fundamentals of a democratic society and, therefore need to be changed or replaced with a system that actually depends on the votes of American people.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I think there is soooo much wrong with the way our country elects a president, from primaries to the electoral college, from the two-party system to super delegates. When did it stop mattering what the American public wants? My personal opinion is that Obama never had a chance, as Clinton had the supers locked in from the begining. Even regular delagates don't "have" to vote the way they were elected to, just the super delegates are the ones that matter since their votes count like a bazillion times more... which also doesn't make sense.
Hillary has a lead in superdelegates but does not have them locked up. Both sides have a fair number of them committed, but there is also a large number of them that have not committed.
Oh and what does the public want? Generally whatever the media, and/or politicians tell them they want.
In general only students have enough time to really research candidates, even presidential candidates . This means taht politicians only have to make an impression taht their views agree roughly with the voting public's. Besides the public generally doesn't pay bribes. They just have the ability to fire them if they really screw up enough to piss everyone off. The lobbyists or the politicians running the local machines (yes they still exist. They just aren't as blatant as Tammany Hall) get the true decisions regarding policy
Normally, a candidate would have picked up enough delegates to win by now, but because Hillary and Obama have split the vote so far, they are too close in terms of delegates.
These super delegates come from the time when all politicians were picked behind closed doors (now its mostly local and state politicians). They were used when there were multiple candidates taht were close, and therefore if the winner won only one region, and the others had more of a national appeal they would pick the one with the national appeal. It basically allows delegates to vote for who is likely to win, so they may vote for the candidate who won all of the swing states instead of the candidate who won only the party's base or the candidate taht won Republican strongholds like texas.
Essentially the superdelegates add flexibility to the vote. So because both Hillary and Obama are so close it means there will be a wide swathe of the population taht will be denied their candidate of choice. This may mean that there will be deals, like maybe offering Obama vp, or some higher office. maybe offering to support obama for the next time he runs.
The superdelegates also give power to party insiders. So for the republican side, if somebody as contrary in policy to the party senators and representitives as Ron Paul was close and won with the regular delegates, he would most likely lose. It helps preserve power for the party insiders, so taht they can help decide what direction the party will go in. Some superdelegates such as those from Ohio right now will hold out their vote until a deal is reached taht will help their state.
Most delegates will vote for whoever won their state, or whoever won the popular vote. But there is flexibility so taht if a voting for a different politician would mean that this politician would get more power, they may do that.
Thanks for informing me. I really had no idea what made these super delegates necessary. That kind of makes sense, but I still think it should be popular vote that elects an official.
Well, we elect or have elected in some way, most of our superdelegates. So, we should be voting for people who really do represent our views.
That is very true. However, I watched a dateline special on a super delegate from Michigan. He was a simple college student of about 19 or 20 years old. He had run unopposed to a simple position in the democratic party. He was approached by members of both Clinton's and Obama's campaigns, trying to sway his vote. I just believe that this is an out-dated system.