One of the most curious comments I have heard about the so-called "Superdelegates" is that if they should not express their independent judgment about the two candidates, what purpose do they serve? Why not just have a popular vote and be done with the Superdelegates?
I’m for that. I think there was an incident in which some progressives out-hustled some traditionalists and the party wanted to be sure that there was adult supervision so the solution was "Superdelegates". Tah-Dah!!!
It reminds me of the Electoral College. Our founding fathers recoiled at the thought of a popular election because the average voter (though well-meaning) was uneducated and dangerously susceptible to undue influence by politicians of dubious morality. The obvious solution was to not have a direct election, but to have the voters elect members of the Electoral College – the outstanding men of the community who would then go about selecting a President.
There are some meaningful differences between the superdelegates and the Electoral College, but the important similarity is the basic distrust of the average voter to make a sound judgment. We think of our constitution as a perfect expression of democracy, but it really isn’t. It expresses a cautionary hesitation about democracy in the Electoral College.
There is move afoot to create interstate compacts in which states would agree to award 100% of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote. This would be the largest step toward democracy since women’s sufferage.
Another solid step toward democracy would be the elimination of the superdelegates. Voters don’t need adult supervision. We don’t need to be saved from ourselves. Let’s just get rid of the entire concept. In the mean time, superdelegates ought to vote in a manner that reflects the popular will of the voters.