Prior to 1968, the presidential nominating conventions were attended by largely hand-picked delegates. They used committees, proxy votes, delegate instruction, and high participation fees to control the nomination in proverbial smoky backrooms regardless of popular will.
Hubert Humphrey was the last such candidate -- he received the 1968 nomination despite having won NO primaries or caucuses.
Efforts began in 1968 to reduce the influence of party leaders over delegate/nominee selection.
After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination.
Those rules required more equitable procedures, such as primaries and caucuses using proportional delegate allocation. Still, up to 10% of delegates could be selected by state committees.
In the following years, some leaders claimed the delegate changes weakened McGovern and Carter by reducing support from party leaders. They argued that “too much democracy” nominated more extremist candidates, effectively blaming McGovern and Carter while exempting themselves. With no hint of irony, party leaders recommended that they get more control over selecting delegates so that they would be more supportive in the future.
By 1982, the Hunt Commission recommended 30% of delegates be set aside for the party leaders.
when it was finally implemented for the 1984 election, they were 14%.
The number [of superdelegates] has steadily increased, and today they are approximately 20%.
McGovern-Fraser changed a hugely undemocratic process and spurred transparently pledging delegates proportionally to the vote. In exchange, the power brokers continued their direct influence on delegations by including themselves as superdelegates. More have been added over time.
Almost fifty years ago, we set a goal and took the step towards a more democratic system. For the last 30 years, we’ve been backsliding. Perhaps it’s time to take the next step and make delegate selection fully proportional to the outcome of primaries and caucuses.
H/T Nate Silver for the last DKOS diary I found focusing on superdelegate history, written by poblano way back in 2008. He gives a broader analysis of “what is a super delegate”, but his history doesn’t look at what came before. It misses what led up to the delegate changes in 1968. I hope this diary fills in a bit of that gap and gives some of the “why we have superdelegates”.