Where is the democracy in superdelegates?

Hello Cole_Trinity_Pheniox, As you correctly assert, there is no deference to, or respect for 'The People' in the practice of allowing 'superdelegates' to override the will of 'The People'. Instead, this practice demonstrates a wholesale disregard of 'The people', and the democratic process. Moreover, it screams of elitism, and the absence of faith in the people to have the wherewithall to wisely choose candidates who will most effectively represent them. The concept of 'superdelegates' was a direct result of the DNC Convention debacle of 1968, where the 'silent majority' abandoned the party bosses' choice for nominee, and voted for Richard Nixon. The subsequent 1972 emphasis was to disempower the party bosses from the strangle-hold ability to choose their preferred nominee. The resulting emphasis was away from caucuses to primaries. Then, in the early 1980s the large-scale abandon of the DNC by 'Reagan Democrats' caused the DNC party leadership to reassert their will in retaking the power of the party, and shaping the direction of future elections. Hence, the 'superdelegates' were created. No other private, USA political party has ever been so arrogant as to create a separate layer of power, whose primary function is to make certain that the base of the party is sufficiently powerless to override the will of the party leadership. The existence of D.N.C. 'superdelegates' is a direct assault on the concept of governance 'of, by and for The People'. And, instead asserts a more insideous reality which emphasizes 'governance of, by, and for the party leadership'. Bearing in mind that political parties are none other than private clubs, and are in no way affilitated with the existing government: federal, state, or local. Essentially, the DNC stacks the choice of candidates, by the party leadership deciding which candidate(s) they will vet and support throughout the race. While always keeping an 'ace in the hole' to make sure that the candidate that the party most wants to win will get the nod, specifically because the 'superdelegates' will have the final say in any close election. In all honesty, the existence of 'superdelegates', as a separate and distinct layer of power, is terribly reminiscent of the Soviet Politburo. While this comparison may shake the sensibilities of some Democrats, even a perfunctory examination of the role of the Soviet Politburo will clearly demonstrate the similarities between the two groups. Perhaps the most eggregious similarity is that each 'superdelegate' is beholden to 'the party' by way of favors, and financial support that the party has provided to them over the years. As such, how can anyone view the existence of superdelegates as anything other than a corruption of our electoral process? ___________________________________________________________ "... blue-collar ethnic white communities – the ‘Silent Majority’ that went for Nixon..." http://www.politickermd.com/history-mikulski-and-creation-superdelegates-1168 ___________________________________________________________ "Between the 1980 and 1984 conventions, The Hunt Commission submitted reforms to the DNC that called for party leaders to become voting delegates, not just nonvoting attendees per McGovern-Fraser. Then-Governor Jim Hunt (D-NC) led the Commission, which was charged to "give party professionals and elected officials an enhanced role at the conventions." The DNC-Hunt Commission negotiations led to making voting delegate spaces available for "core" elected officials from each state - including Governors, US House members and US Senators, state party officials, and mayors of larger cities. These PLEOs (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) and/or other superdelegate slots - as determined by each state party - were formed in time for the 1984 convention, and have been in place since." http://www.rklau.com/tins/archives/2008/01/31/superdelegatesorg-learn-about-the-dnc-super-delegates.php ___________________________________________________________ " what is meant by Democratic "superdelegates... This year there are 796 of them, which accounts for roughly 20% of all Democratic delegates -- that's the share they usually make up. "These are people who are literally delegates, ex officio, by virtue of the office they hold, and therefore, there is no formal connection between their delegate status and any electoral process," says William Galston, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "And what that means is that legally and morally they are totally free to cast their votes as they see fit. They are equally free to make commitments to particular candidates and then change their minds." http://hillaryclintonclub.com/2008/02/sussing-out-superdelegates.html ___________________________________________________________