Superdelegates offsetting the results of primaries is unconstitutional IMHO

[Samantha]

33. The amount of adverse opinion on this subject is too overwhelming to post here

I am going to just post a few excerpts.

But first, just to respond to that very first sentence you wrote, in some cases yes, in other cases no. What about this:

By contrast, the unpledged PLEO delegates (Rule 9.A) are seated without regard to their presidential preferences, solely by virtue of being current or former elected officeholders and party officials. Many of them have chosen to announce endorsements, but they are not bound in any way. They may support any candidate they wish, including one who has dropped out of the presidential race.[6] The other superdelegates, the unpledged add-on delegates (Rule 9.B), who need not be PLEOs, are selected by the state parties after some of the pledged delegates are chosen,[2] but they resemble the unpledged PLEO delegates in being free to vote as they wish.

Unpledged PLEO delegates should not be confused with pledged PLEOs. Under Rule 9.C, the pledged PLEO slots are allocated to candidates based on the results of the primaries and caucuses.[2] Another difference between pledged PLEOs and unpledged PLEOs is that there is a fixed number of pledged PLEO slots for each state, while the number of unpledged PLEOs can change during the campaign. Pledged PLEO delegates are not generally considered superdelegates.

You are correct in saying superdelegates have never caused a candidate to lose a nomination, but it could happen. There could be harm to a candidate, but most of all it would be grossly unfair to all of the voters who in primaries supported that candidate. And that is where our election laws could enter in.

Check this comment out:

Given how Sanders falls well outside the establishment," Timm continues, "it’s hard to see how he can gain a significant number to make up for Clinton’s lead—meaning it’s more likely that superdelegates would at least want to tip the scales in favor of Clinton, even if he ends up winning more primaries."

As far back as August, the Clinton campaign boasted having the support of more than 440 superdelegates.

What's more, as Intercept journalist Lee Fang reveals in this series of tweets, many of the superdelegates who have already pledged support to Clinton have fundraising or established lobbying ties to the candidate.

The entire process, Karp continued, exposes another leg of what he refers to as "the invisible primary," where "media elites, big donors, union leadership" and the heads of other Democratic party-aligned groups have "pushed back against the Sanders insurgency" and "launched a consolidated effort to [stand] up for Clinton as the establishment candidate." (emphasis added)

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/11/after-nh-trouncing-clintons-delegate-haul-exposes-rigged-electoral-system

But I will close out this response to you with a quote from DWS:

“Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” Wasserman Shultz said, adding that the Democratic Party “highlights inclusiveness and diversity at our convention” and wants to give activists “every opportunity” to participate, which she says it what the superdelegates are for.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/11/cnn-host-challenges-wasserman-schultz-on-rigged-superdelegates-process-just-watch-her-response/

Just something to think about, firebrand80, and thanks for posting on this thread. I apologize for the length of this post.



Sam