In 1968, changes were made to the delegate selection process. These changes came about as an effort to take away from the party ‘elders’ the chance to pick delegates to the convention secretly. The rules changed to having delegates sent to the Democratic National Convention in proportion to each state’s population. These changes happened under the recommendations of the McGovern-Fraser Commission’s report in the same year.

However, these changes were implemented when few states had primary elections, and when most were having caucuses, which was where the delegates were being secretly picked. As a result of the change, when the DNC thought that caucuses would continue to be the mainstay of electing, a lot of states went over to primary elections.

An unintended consequence of this change from caucuses to primaries was that the state’s population quickly gained more control in the nominating process than the party ‘elders’. After some bad tickets were produced as a result of the majority of primary votes (like Jimmy Carter and, ironically enough, George McGovern) Governor of North Carolina Jim Hunt proposed the superdelegate idea that quickly came to fruition. Under Hunt’s plan, 30% of all delegates at the DNC would be superdelegates. By 1984, when the plan was implemented, it was 14%. Now, it’s 20%.

Now, when 1984 came about and the superdelegates were implemented, it made for good timing. Walter Mondale only beat out Gary Hart by a few delegates due to the voting, and would have made for an intense floor fight at the DNC, except for the fact that he won all the superdelegates.

In this situation, it saved face, prevented a long and drawn-out DNC, had the party preferred delegate nominated, and ended up going with the candidate who had the most pledged delegates on their side.

So, I would say that the superdelegates were indeed created to give the superdelegates *a* say and not *the* say, as you rightly pointed out. We have never come to a junction where there is a nominee who is clearly the favourite among voters, in terms of votes and pledged delegates, and the superdelegates have over-turned that decision. If that were to occur, then that would be a misinterpretation and skewing of the superdelegate’s role. They are to ensure that the ‘best’ candidate gets onto the ticket (in terms of the nomination process – most votes, most delegates, etc.), and to avoid a messing and party-disgracing floor fight at the DNC.

Hope that answers your question.

I disagreed with that explanation, saying that it may turn out that way, but that wasn’t the original intent. It was to give all those folks who you mentioned a “say” in the process, but not necessarily “the” say. Could you clairfy the original intent of the Superdelegate mechanism?

Please explain and elaborate more fully. thank you.