Letters to the Editor
-
The Most At Stake = The Most To Lose
The logic behind the existence of superdelegates is that if someone has to step in to resolve a deadlock, it probably should be those with the most stake in the future of the party.
Wouldn't that be voters?
Superdelegates will keep their power and influence whether they vote with or against the wishes of a majority of Democratic primary voters. Anyone who buys Shapiro's bullshit need only take a look at the rate of re-election which incumbents enjoy. Considering that some superdelegates are not elected officials, and therefore have nothing to fear or lose, and that elected officials only have about a 5% chance of not being re-elected, well... it's easy to see that superdelegates have little or nothing to lose - and therefore little or nothing at stake.
It's the voters who will lose, the voters who will be disenfranchised. It's Democratic voters who have the most at stake in the future of the party. It is the voters who will lose should the superdelegates elect to ignore their wishes.
And ultimately, the entire nation will lose, as it will be forced to choose between two candidates that no one really wanted in the first place.
Welcome to the Democratic Party version of Florida 2000.