IMO, Super delegates deciding an election is no different than SCOTUS deciding one.

[zonkers]

It's laughable.

[Ichingcarpenter]

1. They get to vote twice

Once in a primary with one vote and
once as superdelegate that has 10,000 the power of the first vote.

[SteppingRazor]

2. I still don't believe it'll happen.

There's no way a majority of the SDs will vote for the candidate that doesn't have the most pledged delegates and the popular vote.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Not really the same, IMO.

The parties themselves get to decide the rules for the parties. If they wanted to have a blindfolded chicken pick out the candidate by spinning a roulette wheel they could.

That said, the superdelegates aren't stupid, and are going to vote for whomever wins the states.

[zonkers]

6. I am just so sick of votes.... not.... counting. It's so disheartening.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Relax.

The votes will count.

That's why most superdelegates are waiting. To see who you vote for, and then they'll follow your lead.

[Little Star]

4. Take it up with the DNC. Rules are rules remember?

[Skinner]

5. Actually, it is different.

Superdelegates, while anti-democratic and stupid, are part of the process created by the Democratic party to select our nominee. I may not like it, but these are the rules of the game that everyone implicitly agreed to be bound by when they entered the contest.

In 2000, SCOTUS stepped in and changed the rules of the game after the fact in order to install their favored candidate.

[MagsDem]

8. I feel the same way about caucuses

But that's the way it works, sucky as it is.

[housewolf]

9. Well there IS at least ONE really big difference...

all the super-delegates are Democrats as opposed to the Supreme Court which is half or more Republican.

[shadowknows69]

10. I'll leave the party for good.

Voters have been coming out in record numbers but that will change if it's clear the people didn't have a voice in this.