How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Superdelegates

For example, they could prevent a contested convention if the primaries and caucuses fall just short of delivering a majority to a single candidate and the party clearly favors one candidate. This is unlikely, but it's possible. Suppose one broadly acceptable candidate winds up with 48 percent of the pledged delegates, two others fall short with 20 percent each, and a factional candidate wins 12 percent of the others. Since a majority is needed, the "winner" wouldn't have enough votes, and the other three candidates might well stay in the race all the way up to the convention vote.

The party would be unable to begin the fall campaign in earnest, and the convention might wind up an ugly mess, if the losing candidates refused to release their delegates. Instead, the supers would be able to put the "winner" over the top well before the convention begins.

(...)

Republicans don't have superdelegates, but imagine this: Donald Trump gets about 35 percent of the primary vote everywhere, winning consistently until Republicans narrow the field. Though he loses the final contests once he's facing only one opponent, he winds up with just over half of the delegates. If the Republicans had superdelegates, they would band together to defeat him. Would that be a democratic outcome? I think so.

(...)

So, don't panic about superdelegates. If a candidate wins a decisive victory in the primaries and caucuses, the supers aren't going to upend that. If it's a tie, they'll make the choice. And nothing is wrong, or undemocratic, about that.