Why use superdelegates when it doesn't reflect the majority's vote of the people?

Question

Why use superdelegates when it doesn't reflect the majority's vote of the people?

Answer 1

because they know about the delegates what the american people don't get to see....like Hillary b-tching at Bill

Answer 2

They were created so that the voters in the states did NOT have the "last word" in a close race.

Now, mind you, I don't care for this system, which is why I would prefer Florida and Michigan have a re-vote to decide this if it comes down to that. But that doesn't change the fact that the supers were created to influence, not reinforce, the primary voting.

Answer 3

*****because the Democratic party decided this was the best way to do it.  I think they'll end up regretting the decision, though.  The Democratic party is turning into a real circus!  (and I'm a democrat!!)

Answer 4

Because, sometimes, the majority just picks a bad candidate.  It doesn't mean the majority was stupid, necisarily - for instance, you could have a case where the primary is just about over and it comes out that the leading candidate has been doing something heinous enough that even the Demcrats don't want to run him, super-delegates could tip the balance away from such a pariah.

Historically, super delegates were a compromise to make the primary /more/ democratic.  In the past, powerful political machines controlled the process, mainly through caucuses - the move to secret-ballot primaries in more states made the process more 'democratic,' but, the party bosses didn't want to give up that much of thier influence, so the super delegates were added as a compromise to let them preserve some of that influence, at least, in theory.

In practice, overriding the popular vote via super delegates might hurt the nominees chances in the general election, because it would apear 'undemocratic.'

Answer 5

Because the Democratic party elite does not want a candidate they do not approve of nominated.

Answer 6

Because they're democrats and the will of the people doesn't count. Only the politcians are important.

Answer 7

Because "Them's the rules".

Answer 8

Because the popular vote is inaccurate because Republicans vote against people and not for people. There has been a large turn out of Republicans in the Democratic primary.

Answer 9

Because it's used as a check and balance.  In order to get rid of the superdelegates the US would have to come up with a new national voting system.  There wouldn't be anymore districts it would have to be one full district, and then you would have to decide who would count the votes and who would announce the votes.  Then the American public isn't always consistant with their decision.  For example, when Al Gore went up agaisnt Bush, Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election.  

We vote these superdelegates to vote with the majority of the state. If they aren't voting the way they're supposed to them vote for someone else.

"We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate."-Thomas Jefferson

Answer 10

We were discusing that very subject at a luncheon today.  We are sick of it.

Answer 11

Because the Democrat elitists don't trust the people voting. They want and need an escape mechanism set-up, just in case the "people" s***w-up and select a nimrod for the nomination. It gives them the ability to backroom deal, just in case Obama is actually revealed prior to August.

Answer 12

Well there are several issues that need to be addressed with this statement.  

1. The Superdelegates ARE right now a reflection of the majority of the people, as Barack Obama has the most delegates and has won the most states.  This is the way that the American democratic process has always worked, for example, Al Gore had about 500,000 more votes that George Bush Jr in the 2000 election but had less electoral college votes.  This is the way it is and should be done, by the states.

2. Hillary Clinton only has the "majority" of the votes if you count both Michigan and Florida who broke the rules, AND let me stress AND if you don't count several states where they had Caucuses instead, also the way some Caucuses work, you don't get the number of voters, just the percentages.  

Superdelegates are rallying around Barack Obama, and he has only just passed Hillary Clinton in superdelegates.  She had lots more in the early primaries when she had more state delegates. So it is unfair to make that statement, and if you are just a disgruntled Clinton supporter or an apathetic citizen then I feel sorry for you.  

Clinton and Obama are very much alike, differing in Senate votes on only two occasions.

Answer 13

They decide which way to do it. If the peoples' opinion doesn't match their good judgement, then he can defy it and put in the opposite vote. But if they agree with the peoples' judgement, then he will put in the corresponding vote. The peoples' votes are just a suggestion to what the superdelegate should choose, not a demand.

Answer 14

The superdelegates were added to the party's rules in an attempt to prevent an unelectable candidate from gaining the nomination.