Reply #10: What it basically comes down to is this:

[msallied]

If superdelegates were automatically expected to vote with their respective districts/states, then there would be no reason to HAVE superdelegates, which were designed to prevent the party from nominating someone who was "anti-establishment." Certainly, it is something akin to political suicide if they DON'T vote for the person who is deemed most electable by the constituents who voted for a particular candidate, but they certainly don't HAVE to. It all comes down to which candidate can lobby the most of them.

I'm willing to bet that most of them will ultimately swing for the person who goes into the convention with the most electability, and that person is generally the one who has received the most votes and delegates.

What this particular primary season has taught us is that the notion of superdelegates should be tossed out the window once and for all, because it gives the entire process a complete lack of democracy.