Anything I'm missing?

Autonomy, unpredictability, dynamics...politics?

I really don't get the argument that Charlie Rangel, elected by his constituents over many years, appointed a Superdelegate for the stated purpose of mediating disputes between pledged delegates, should have no opportunity to exercise an independent judgement of his interests, the interests of his constiturnts, the interests of the Party, at the convention.

Charlie Rangel is not a hack without acountability.

Free Charlie Rangel!!

Oddly enough I kind of agree with McManus.

Also, some superdelegates don't have districts or constituencies (e.g. DNC members).

Here's something I don't understand (and, yes, I appreciate that conventions are all theater): I remember them calling out states at the convention and then the state delegations calling out something like "The great state of Virginia pledges N delegates to Candidate" until the number of delegates is reached for the nomination. (And that they usually skip the home state and then go back to them later and let them put it over the top FTW.)

Was that just the Republican convention, since they're winner-take-all? How did they do they do that if nobody has a clear-cut winnable number of delegates?

appointed a Superdelegate for the stated purpose of mediating disputes between pledged delegates

My understanding is that there were multiple stated purposes of the superdelegates, one of which was just to get high profile Democrats to attend the convention, and another was to give the party establishment more control over the selection process, which I suppose is roughly equivalent to mediating disputes among pledged delegates.

I like that Charlie and Alma are publicly split over who to support.

1,2: No one said it's wrongful is a super-delegate votes differently, just that it's relevant information. I'd certainly like Rep. Maloney to withdraw her support from Sen. Clinton even though she won her district.

And, while I do think that people like Charlie Rangel should have the freedom to vote however they please, I don't think they should be able to do it without accountability. If the SD are going to throw it to someone, they're going to do that. But I think who was behind it should be public.

3- The other candidates who have won any delegates have released them to vote for the nominee. I think all delegate counting has been one round unanimous decision in recent elections.

I really don't get the argument that Charlie Rangel, elected by his constituents over many years, appointed a Superdelegate for the stated purpose of mediating disputes between pledged delegates, should have no opportunity to exercise an independent judgement of his interests, the interests of his constiturnts, the interests of the Party, at the convention.

Huh? Rangel has plenty of opportunity to exercise his independent judgment and his status gives him ample power to influence his constituents and others. He also has a vote, like the rest of us. The idea that one candidate could get a majority of the delegates and then not get the nomination due to the preferences of a bunch of insiders is appalling. It also won't happen given the backlash that would ensue.

It also won't happen given the backlash that would ensue.

I'm getting unpleasant flashbacks.

The idea that one candidate could get a majority of the delegates and then not get the nomination due to the preferences of a bunch of insiders is appalling.

Superdelegates are delegates, and only one quarter of the total. Most of them are fairly elected by local party constituencies, like State Party Chairpersons, and I don't see them that far removed from some sort of legitimacy.

Considering the tiny attendance at many of the caucus states, it isn't hard for me to accept that Charlie Rangel is at least as legitimate a delegate as a caucus delegate from Iowa.

So superdelegates are ok because "most" superdelegates aren't that far removed from "some sort of legitimacy?" Powerful argument.

Each delegate from Iowa represents about 4,000 caucusgoers, and those delegates are pledged to support the collective preference of those voters. It is illegitimate for Dave Loebsack or Bruce Braley or any other Iowa Democratic official to have as much say as 4,000 voters. It is especially illegitimate for elected superdelegates to pledge to support a candidate that a majority of their constituents expressly rejected.

10:Yes it is a powerful argument.

Part of the original concept was that it was insane for a Barbara Boxer to have no role at the Democratic Convention, and to have her running as a delegate was to remove a chance for an ordinary party activist to participate. Such a convention, where elected officials were the delegates, would be even more elitist than the present system.

I think I'm also with Bob here, at least to some extent. The system of having unpledged delegates whose vote isn't controlled by a state's primary voters or caucus goers is certainly undemocratic. But given the existence of that system I don't see it as illegitimate for a party leader or elected official to exercise discretion in who to vote for. Also, I just found an explanation of who the unpledged delegates are besides Party Leaders and Elected Officials.

Even with the Überdelegates, the Democratic party's method for choosing a candidate is far more democratic than the Republicans'. Winner-take-all state primaries, forsooth.

Sure, if you're going to have superdelegates, then having them be party officials makes sense. I'll let this article make my arguments for me. Needless to say, if we removed superdelegates from our current system it would be less elitist.

I'm pro-superdelegate and strongly anti-caucus. Caucuses are a horrible mess. In our caucus we unanimously recommended going to a primary system, and that seems to be the DFL position statewide.

If Hillary / Obama go to the convention tied, superdelegates can cut deal, break the tie, and smooth people down. The intensity of candidate committment I've seen even here is scary.

I think the % should be lower and/or the delegates should be awarded proportionately by state instead of by district.

I think it's legit. to support a candidate who doesn't win your state or district, & legit. for campaigns to argue "respect your constituents' wishes" & constituents to say "respect our wishes." I wrote to Emanuel saying: I know you have ties to both, but it has to be obvious that your constituents very strongly favor Obama & shouldn't we at least break the tie? But apparently the campaign thinks organized efforts to do this this aren't the greatest idea & might rub people the wrong way.

I'm not TOO worried about this; I think it would be destructive if all of the superdelegates broke one way & gave the convention to someone who was sig. behind in pledged delegates. But I don't think that's likely to happen--I don't think the gap will be decisive unless the pledged delegates are basically tied, & maybe the supers can use this to prevent people from going too negative.

The potential for MI/FL shenanigans more worrisome. (I saw that someone asked Obama about a do-over--he said: "fine by me, but it's not my call, it's the DNC's.")

Huh, Marty Meehan gets to be the Representative superdelegate from my district and not Niki Tsongas? I wonder how that works. I guess this was decided a while ago.

17: that's a bummer. Nicki Tsongas would go for Obama, I absolutely guarantee.