[lbo-talk] How democratic is having "superdelegates"?

[John Thornton]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2008, at 4:46 PM, Michael Pollak wrote:
>
>   
>> It's true that's was the origin of the system.  (And I totally  
>> agree with
>> your characterization of Ornstein and Mann as mainstream  
>> apparachiks par
>> excellence.)  But as I read it, O&M's main argument is that, in  
>> their 25
>> year history, the superdelegates have always voted for the candidate
>> winning the plurality of votes.  And thus that their real function has
>> become to avoid bitter televised convention fights into  
>> celebrations by
>> transforming close contests into foregone conclusions.
>>     
>
> Dem voters haven't really made any "irresponsible" choices in the  
> last 25 years, and Obama certainly isn't one of those. In any case,  
> if he wins the pop vote I can't imagine the superdelegates trying to  
> overturn that. Structurally, though, they're intended as a limiting  
> force.
>
> Doug

Maybe I just expect racism to trump democracy but my expectation is that 
through the superdelegates Clinton will be given the nod if the vote is 
close.

John Thornton