Written by Robert Beltran   

Most of us are aware that in the primary phase of the presidential election process, the Democratic Party utilizes both pledged delegates and “superdelegates.” Candidates earn pledged delegates through the state election and caucus processes, but superdelegates cannot be earned through the popular vote. Senator Bernie Sanders’ voters are frustrated because most superdelegates had committed to vote for Secretary Hillary Clinton even before the primary election and caucus processes had begun. This, however, is not the way the superdelegates are supposed to operate.

Even before the candidate roster was filled, many –If not most– superdelegates had decided whom to support, and the vast majority are supporting Clinton. Most owe her political favors for campaign appearances, fundraisers, or other political debts. And some are simply dedicated fans. That’s why Clinton has a massive superdelegate lead over Sanders and has had it from the beginning. But by committing themselves to Clinton, these party establishment loyalists are abrogating their role as superdelegates. Perhaps they need a refresher on why superdelegates even exist.

There is a reason the Democratic Party has superdelegates, and it is arguably rational. The party felt stung back in 1972 when populist Senator George McGovern defeated former Vice President Hubert Humphrey in a turbulent battle for the nomination, followed by several public relations misfortunes and targeting by the now infamous Richard Nixon “dirty tricks” campaign (which later led to Nixon’s Watergate impeachment). In the general election, McGovern suffered a resounding defeat. Democrats resolved to establish a firewall against future grassroots exuberance for “unelectable” candidates. Superdelegates from each state would be selected by the party mainstream to buffer the effects of populism v. electability. These superdelegates would have the political acumen and good sense to distinguish between idealism and practicality and ensure the most electable candidate was on the November Democratic ballot. That, at least, was the intent.

Early on the Sanders supporters voiced concern over the existence of superdelegates. Sanders forces feared that if he managed to win a majority of the popular vote plus the caucuses, he would still be beaten out by the superdelegates. It now appears ever more unlikely for that to happen –Sanders would need to win 65% of the popular vote, overall, to have more pledged delegates than Clinton. But that may be more doable than one might expect. Many of the independent voters in states with open primaries (who will no longer have an incentive to vote for Trump since his presumptive nomination) are likely to vote for Sanders. Likewise, the normally Democratic voters who would vote for Trump to avoid a Cruz candidacy are now likely to vote for Sanders as well. We are likely to see some surprising Sanders victories.

When Sanders supporters expressed that early concern about superdelegates countervailing the popular vote, they were told by the party establishment essentially to “stuff it” -it was in the rules, the superdelegates were there to ensure only an electable candidate won the primary, and everybody had to play by the same rules. So, no whining.

Since then, the Sanders people have been playing by the rules. Because they have been schooled that rules are rules, they now have every right to expect the rules to be followed. If the superdelegates are there to ensure the most electable candidate is selected, so be it. If, come convention night, that’s Clinton, they should vote for her. If it’s Sanders, they should vote for him. Those are supposed to be the rules. Superdelegates and the DNC should play by them, too.

Another popular theory is that the superdelegates should -and in the end will- vote as their states voted; or as their districts voted; or as the majority of all the public voted. If they do any of these, however, one has to question: why have superdelegates at all?

If electability is superdelegates’ reason for being, they all should be and should remain uncommitted until the convention. Their sole criterion, given the rationale for their creation, should be the apparent electability of the candidates on convention night. In virtually every state-by-state and national head-to-head poll comparing Sanders to Clinton against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, Sanders wins, and he usually wins big. Meanwhile, where Clinton wins in those polls, it's only by a small margin –or she loses, both state-by-state and nationally.

This could change in either direction by convention night, or other factors could come to bear. Trump could self-destruct making either candidate a shoo-in, for instance; or Clinton’s legal issues could prove worse than we all hope; or some scandal could surface on any side. If the current polling holds through the primary campaign and superdelegates swing the nomination to Clinton at the Democratic convention, they will countervail their stated purpose and their mission.

The point is that the superdelegates should keep their powder dry until the primary, not that they should vote for Sanders. By declaring early, they already have done harm to the democratic process. They created the perception among the voting public that Sanders has no chance -and some media outlets persist in showing only the total delegate count (pledged plus superdelegates). This reinforces the punditry that Clinton is the presumptive nominee, demotivates Sanders voters and encourages Clinton voters.

It’s understandable why those loyal or indebted to Clinton feel obligated to support her. But they need to find other ways to do that. They can still endorse her, but they ought not announce that they are committed to vote for her at the convention. The same goes for Sanders superdelegates. Right now, they are wearing a different hat. The party has charged them to vote for electability. One must distinguish between personal endorsement and delegate commitment. A superdelegate can endorse as an individual on the one hand, but withhold commitment as a delegate until the last moment when all the facts are in and all considerations are evaluated, irrespective of personal leanings. Otherwise, the party is telling the public, “Go ahead and vote, but pay no attention to that thumb already on the scale in favor of the establishment candidate.”

Superdelegates, please do your job. Declare now that, irrespective of your personal endorsement, you are uncommitted because your duty as a superdelegate is to see that a Democrat is elected. Despite your admiration for Secretary Clinton or Senator Sanders, you must carry out your mission to vote at the convention for the candidate you deem, at that time, to be most electable.

Either that, or let the people decide and don’t vote at all.