& thus, IMO, taking the votes away from the people. I truly do not understand.

It is a pretty stupid concept, but mostly invented for the purpose of winning, rather than any ideological purpose.
Apparently when they switched to a more democratic system, the people elected hardcore liberals that were "unelectable" at the time... so they overreacted and made up a class of safe-guards.

Personally I'd like to see more liberals elected. But the Crats have been defeatist for a while, supporting their opponents' framing the word "liberal" as bad. Clinton is an embodiment of that.
The Democrats seem hellbent on making their political weakness permanent.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

No, because the Democratic party is a private entity and can pretty much make up any rule they want.

Maybe because of some of their stupid moves is the reason they appear as weak.
The Republicans were elected in '94 becaus of a party gone wild, then they started acting the same way the Dems did, voila!, they lost.
These people (elected officials) are supposed to be the best the country has to offer, gawd, are we in trouble.

Now you understand

That is the other part of it.

People seem to be under the wrong impression that primaries are democratic elections. Really they are focus groups for the large entities that pick the major candidates.

There is nothing to keep the losing candidates from running independent (actually there is- "sore loser" states... but no one is calling Texas antidemocratic on the right... Wonder why... and I guess there are also all the barriers to third parties that make it nigh impossible to get on every state's ballot... but while both major parties certainly are involved in maintaining this, it really is the state governments at large responsible). And there is no reason the people have to feel the need to back only one of the two main brands of candidate and keep their oligopoly going.

Still... I think superdelegates are a silly idea. If they ever have to choose a candidate, barring a last-minute scandal, it's bound to alienate half the party.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

& I wish I didn't.
I was happier when I was buying into the "by the people, for the people".
One thing voters can do, throw 'em all out....yeah, like that's going to happen.
My plan is to vote against incumbents in Nov. If their oppponent is a cyclopse or a cannabalistic pygmy, so be it.

Let me explain something a true democrasy is impossible outside a very small community. Rule by the mob is not something to strive for, a representative system is the best we can hope for.

__________________
"True Freedom is the Freedom to oppress others"

A representative democracy is what we're supposed to have.
Ben Franklin said, "We have wrought a representative democracy, [b]for as long as you can keep it[b]"
Looks like it's fading.

How does one become a super delegate?
Is it an appointment?
Is it someone who is elected? If so, who elects them?
How many are there?
What are their names?
Which one do I talk to in order to get my voice heard and represented?

I understand that a true democracy is too difficult, hence we have a Democratic Republic. How is the concept of super delegate system like a Republic when people from that party don't even know who the super delegates are, or how they got to be super delegates?

The electoral college and the senate are stipulated in our constitution. Where does the constitution allow for a super delegate style system?

If the Democrat Party is the party "for the little people," how do you think this makes the little people feel?

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)