here's a possible primary delegate-choosing scenario i haven't seen discussed

[dysfunctional press]

and it wouldn't be for this selection cycle anyway, but-

what if the super-delegates were "awarded" on a winner-take-all basis to the winner of the primary election of the state that they are elected official/resident of- based on either the pledged delegate count or popular vote totals of the election?

for instance- in this cycle, hillary won massachusetts, so john kerry, teddy kennedy, and the other supers from that state would be required to vote for hillary on the first ballot...

the pledged/elected delegates from the actual primary elections would still be awarded proportionally as they are now.

under such a scenario, who would be leading at this point in this race? :shrug:

[dubeskin]

1. That kind of defeats the whole point of the "SUPER" delegate

I mean, IN THE EVENT that it becomes necessary for super delegates to go against the will of the voters of their district and state, they have that power. By assigning them to their state, they simply become another delegate, but a delegate with name recognition. Super delegates also help provide momentum or help campaign in states be endorsing candidates.

By removing the "super" part, they become just another delegate. I think they way the system is now kind of works. Also, just another thing to throw out there. It helps those candidates who win the bigger states, like Clinton, over those like Obama, who win the smaller ones with less SDs. The super delegates allow a sort of balance, because it's expected that they'll pretty much go 50/50 or somewhere near that.