alandeus wrote:
I also don't completely understand how her winning the superdelegate vote would be a backroom deal. Those individuals are free to choose whatever criteria they deem necessary as reason for their vote. To have them vote as a unified group for the person who "received the most votes" or "won the most states" or is nowhere in the rules; to order them to do so would be changing the rules in the middle of the game.
that's true, but it's a dangerous game to play. If superdelegates ignore a candidate with more votes, more states won, etc, and favor a candidate that is runniing behind (for whatever reason that may be, friendship, bribery, etc), then they are playing russian roulette with the americans.
If the superdelegates choice presents wonderful results, heck, no one will ever give a damn, and no one will remember this happened.
But if things go sour, if the candidate chosen by the superdelegates (based on other criteria than more popular support at caucases), gets into a big scandal, then people wil sit and take notice, and demand responsabilities.
People will cry "but he/she is not the person we voted for! what is going on here?"... The superdelegates must be aware that people will be watching.
If this candidate were to get into trouble, then not only would the superdelegates be massively discretited, but the whole democrat party would be taking a severe blow in terms of public opinion.
If the superdelegates ignore public opinion, it is at their own risk. If their candidate gets into trouble, people will demand "blood" because their vote was not taken into account. The Democrat party could lose a lot of its credibility. Just like when Bush was elected by "court/trial" maneuvers, leading to the result that many americans would feel that "voting" is pointless, because legal manouevers and backdoor negotiating would always prevail over their choice.