Regarding superdelegates, and why the bar to override the people MUST be set high

[Tarc]

(Breaking this out from another thread, as I think it needs to be read and seen)

Hell or high water, you dance with the one you brung. There would have to be absolutely, 100% crystal-clear dire doom afoot if we were to ever let a small group of people override the will of the primary voter, and I'm sorry but "I think my guy can beat the GOP" is not it. "She might be indicted" isn't it. Hell, let's pretend that Hillary literally was indicted, I'd STILL see it through, because the goddamn voters have picked it. We get who we deserve in a democracy, to paraphrase someone I don't care enough to google atm.

The only...literally the O-N-L-Y...scenario in the 40 years of the superdelegate existence I'd support the supers overthrowing the people would be if Lyndon motherfucking Larouche somehow wound up with the pledged delegate lead in one of his perennial campaigns, and that is only because I support any and all forms of disobedience, civil and otherwise, to disrupt racists. That's why I freely call for people to disrupt Trump's so-called "free speech" rights at his rallies.

If you're going to usurp a democratic process, you best be damn sure that bar is high. "Hillary might lose" is just a form of ends-justify-the-means.

[JimDandy]

1. We agree. My state went 75% for Bernie. All the superdelegates in my state

should be voting for Bernie along with us, their constituents. As should every delegate in every state he won. That is what we have been saying from day 1.

[thesquanderer]

2. I accept your argument when it comes to the ordinary "pledged" delegates.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, even "pledged" delegates can shift their vote... but it would require the kind of extraordinary circumstance you describe.

But it is the proper role of the super delegates to vote for whoever they want at the time the votes are cast at the convention. They are not usurping the democratic process if they change their mind compared to what they'd said in the past. They are not betraying the people. The only person they are "betraying" is their earlier self (which I put in quotes because, of course, changing your mind isn't really betraying yourself). They are certainly entitled to consider all circumstances at the time, and not necessarily vote the way they said they would (or for the person they endorsed) perhaps a year or more ahead of time.

The process is simply not intended to lock them in as soon as they make a public announcement of their preference. That's why they are referred to as "unpledged" right up until they vote.