2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Should this be the last time we have superdelegates? [View all]PufPuf23
(8,843 posts)My initial reaction is that super-delegates are undemocratic.
But super-delegates do serve a purpose.
Ideally the super-delegates have a bigger picture and a longer time horizon than the regular Democratic party voter.
I do think that super-delegates should not reveal their votes until the convention. Proof of this approach is exhibited by what has occurred in 2016. The DNC and Clinton campaign pre-stacked the deck on the primary season by commitment of super-delegates before any primaries took place then widely stating that Clinton had a near insurmountable lead. The is approach has backfired because the tactic caused negative perceptions and also the super-delegates are a path to the nomination of Sanders.
The positive role of the super-delegates depends on them acting in good faith and not overly partisan regards incumbents and political machines (such as Bushes or Clintons). The super-delegates are a firewall in case there is a fundamental situation of gravitas discovered in course of the primary campaign. What if a candidate gets ill or has failed to disclose a medical problem? What if a candidate has a legal problem or a too big to ignore conflict of interest? What if candidate has cheated and there is not time for a full and comprehensive investigation? What if there is the unusual circumstance where there is a relatively close primary result where the presumed "loser" has a far better chance versus the GOP candidate in the general election?
So I have concluded that there is a place for super-delegates.