Superdelegates and the "Will of the People."

Since Democrats don't employ winner-take-all primaries and caucuses, why should the superdelegates?
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Since Democrats don't employ winner-take-all primaries and caucuses, why should the superdelegates?

Just thinking out loud here (I'm neither a Clinton nor Obama partisan), but take, say, Texas. Mrs. Clinton won the primary (but not -- one's head spins -- the caucus) there 51-47. If I understand those who advocate for superdelegates following the voters instead of their individual consciences, Texas-based superdelegates (35 of them, according to the Houston Chronicle) should all throw their support to Mrs. Clinton.

But wouldn't it be more in keeping with how Democrats have run the primaries for Mrs. Clinton to then get, say, 18 superdelegates (roughly 51 percent) and Obama 16 (roughly 47 percent)?

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot