Patrice, with all due respect your explanation of the reason for Super delegates and how they do not represent a potential for the National Party having a “finger on the scale” simply doesn’t hold water. First, you did not tell us why the Party first created Super delegates. I have been a Democrat since 1968. My birth state held a partisan primary election to determine our choice for Democratic candidate. The voters always believed that our votes were the determinant of the outcome of the state’s primary. And they were, until 1984 when the DNC changed the rules to include Super delegates. The reason for this change was to make sure that upstart candidates like George McGovern could not be so easily win the nomination. That was the Party’s first breach of democracy.
You say, “We ensure these leaders (Super delegates) have a voice in our convention outside of the primary and caucus process: Unpledged (Super) delegates mean interested voters don’t have to run against elected officials to attend the Democratic National Convention.” What you actually mean is that interested voters CANNOT run against elected officials AND Party officials and operatives. If we could, at least we would have a chance at taking their delegate vote. I now live in a caucus state where I have to run for delegate in my precinct caucus, and again at my county convention, then in my legislative district, and finally at my state convention — that is four times I must run for delegate to become one to the Democratic National Convention. This process takes time, energy, money (for travel from place to place) and a great deal of effort.
On the other hand, Super delegates don’t have to run at all — they automatically have exactly the same voting standing that I do and thus can easily negate my vote if they choose. I would suggest that is not democracy, which by definition is one person, one vote. In fact, Super delegate appointees give the Democratic Party leaders a great deal of power to put a “finger on the scale” of democracy.
The only way that would change is if the Party required the Super delegates to vote in line with the outcome of a caucus or primary election, which obviously is not the case. Or, the Party could simply do away with this unfair and undemocratic Supernumerary process and rely on the will of the people. Instead the Party makes it so difficult at the Primary Candidate Selection level that many people drop out because it is so arcane and difficult to understand and it requires so much personal time. Voting can be very easy. Primaries and Caucuses mixed up with unelected Super delegates is a subversion of democracy and it should be fixed by the Party of the People, the Party that takes its name from democracy itself. Just back off and let us vote, then live by the results. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.