An old article, but it helped me understand superdelegates (who vote for presidential nominees at national conventions but aren’t bound to the result of primary voting).
Turns out they help slow the pace of change that can happen in a party, similar to how checks and balances help maintain stability in the government itself. They can both be frustrating at times, but they have their benefits as well.
Superdelegates exist because they’re in the best interest of the party’s longevity. In my view, at least, it’s not so much that the parties are evil or don’t care about voters. It’s just weird (and maybe broken) that the interests of over 300M people have to be smushed into representation by *only two* parties, largely because of our winner-take-all contests.
I’d love to hear related thoughts.