Super-delegates play a vital role

Super-delegates should follow their own conscience in deciding whom to vote for. After all, what is the point of having them if they are merely to rubber-stamp the election result? Super-delegates are supposed to provide a check on the dangers of majority rule (mobocracy). Party insiders are likely better informed and have greater insight and better judgment as to the qualifications of their fellow politicians than the general voting public. Many voters are not very well informed or issues-oriented and therefore easily swayed by rhetoric and appearance. They are also susceptible to manipulation by media pundits and tend to choose a candidate based on irrational emotions, self-centered considerations, and personal preferences.

Our system of electing a president is rather uncommon among Western democracies. Most of them (except France, Russia, Georgia, Serbia, etc.) don't let voters pick the head of state directly but rely on systems involving party insiders akin to our super-delegates. So far these nations seem to have better luck at electing qualified heads of state than we have, at far lower cost to boot.

Lanlan Hoo

Wheaton