Imagine for one moment that the race comes down to the superdelegates

[Seen the light]

Now imagine that the person going into the convention winning the most pledged delegates comes out of the convention as the loser due to the superdelegates voting for the other candidate by just enough to let that candidate win the nomination.

Your reaction?

[SteppingRazor]

1. My reaction? You ever see Scanners?

:P

[Blue_State_Elitist]

2. That's the way it goes.

Maybe change the rules next time.

[rinsd]

3. It will depend upon how close the pledged delegate race is.

If one candidate is ahead a couple of hundred but just short of the majority, losing because of super delegates will cuase the party to meltdown.

But if the gap is small(and I mean small like less than 30), losing because of super delegates will probably be less of a deal

[displacedtexan]

4. These party rules have been on the books for decades.

Why are people just now getting upset about them?

And I have to ask: How many people getting upset are actually party members?

This is the system we Democrats have now, and those who insisted on following
party rules (MI & FL) should insist that this rule be followed, as well.

Don't you think so?

[dmallind]

5. Depends if the winner won on other criteria

If the supers voted for a candidate with a sizeable popular vote lead who got shafted because of delegate allocation I'd be OK with it.

[LiberalFighter]

6. It's up to the party to decide the rules

And the party consists of those actively involved in the party from precinct chairs and vice chairs to county, district and state chairs and officers and elected state and national convention delegates. They are the ones that are there year end year out working in campaigns for candidates from local to national level on a regular basis.

They are the members of the party. They vote on the rules at each level of the organization. And each next level is represented by the lower level and given the authority to create the rules by a vote.