Superdelegate is not a term used in the Democrat Party rule book. Under Rule 9A, they are called "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates" comprised of:
1. The individuals recognized as members of the DNC (as set forth in Article Three, Sections 2 and 3 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States); and,There are about 800 superdelegates, about 20% of the 4ooo total, that will be at the Democrat Party convention and they are not bound by the wishes of the voters, they can do as they damned well please. The superdelegates are there just in case the the democrat masses fail to elect the 'right' candidate. If the party officials dissapprove of the popular choice, the superdelegates can overrule the people by electing the choice of the party bosses.
2. The Democratic President and the Democratic Vice President of the United States, if applicable; and,
3. All Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives and all Democratic members of the United States Senate; and,
4. The Democratic Governor, if applicable; and,
5. All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.
A very democratic rule and practice, to be sure. But not to fear, each superdelegate has pledged to follow the will of the voters and not be swayed by big bucks. We have their word of sacred honor on that.
According to Political Intellegence of the Boston Globe,
Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.The candidates and the superdelegates say that getting control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government is far more important than from whom the emoluments have been received.
Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.
Yet the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, all seven elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her. Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him. In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money. Four superdelegates who have already pledged received the same amount of contributions from both Clinton and Obama—and all committed to Clinton.On the surface, you may think this is not a very democratic way to choose a candidate, and you'd be right. As a matter of fact, the Democratic Party didn't want it to be democratic.
Ahh, now there, in a nutshell, is the Democrat Party we all have come to know and fear. The party elite never intended for the process to be democratic because they don't trust the masses , the "amateurs", to make grown-up decisions. Only the Democrat Party elite think with their heads. The amateurs, i.e., children, are too emotional to make important adult decisions.
Though it might seem undemocratic to allow elected officials who have received money from the candidates to have such power in picking their party's nominee, the process was not meant to be democratic, Arizona State's Herrera said.
"If anything, it was meant to take it out of the democratic process. In 1982 [the party] said they needed to have some professionals making decisions here to blunt the potential effects of what they perceived as amateur delegates making decisions—those who vote with their heart and not their head."
It should be pointed out that in the 2000 presidential election, the Democrat Party, in Bush v. Gore, accused the Republican Party and George Bush of stealing the Florida vote from Al Gore. In the current election process, the Democrats seem to be on the cusp of stealing the election from themselves with nary a Republican in sight. Their crooked ways of practicing democracy and their cock-eyed views on what constitutes free and fair democratic elections is becoming so clear to all that even Democrat Party members are questioning the party rules and elites.
The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.