2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Should this be the last time we have superdelegates? [View all]Peachhead22
(1,078 posts)I believe the superdelegates should stay. They serve a useful purpose. You could say they are "undemocratic", and you'ld be right. But I'm sure the Republicans wish they had superdelegates. And we could conceivably face a similar situation someday. Through fuckery or some other bizarre folie à deux we could have someone dominate the primaries that make most people wonder "what the f*** are they thinking!?" So it's basically a failsafe.
However, in my opinion it's totally wrong for superdelegates to be wooed by a candidate or to disclose their allegiance to any candidate before the last state primary. In a similar way that the news media won't talk too specifically about exit polls or how the vote totals look before every polling station in a state is closed. Because early returns can influence people who haven't yet voted. I have no doubt that Hillary's and her advocates' constant harping on a giant lead in superdelegates have unnaturally skewed people's opinions and votes. Counting people who have yet to vote as votes already in her column. It's like a dishonest Enron accounting trick. And it can hurt the entire party in the long run.
I would make a rule that any superdelegate who openly talks about their future vote for a particular candidate risks being immediately replaced as a superdelegate. I'm not sure what sanctions I would assess against a candidate who prematurely courted a superdelegate. But IMO there should be some sort of sanction.