The pledged delegates are not the “will of the people”. Not even close. At the very best, you can say that some of the pledged delegates do represent the will of some of the people. Specifically the pledged delegates determined by primaries. In some cases (like Texas) we know for a fact that the pledged delegates actually represent the exact opposite of the “will of the people”. I find the arguments conflating “pledged delegates” with “the will of the people” on a par with arguments equating “Intelligent Design” and Evolution.

Actually, the Founding Fathers probably wouldn’t have an issue with it. After all they only wanted white property owners voting in the first place, plus they wanted the chief executive chosen by the legislature. They were perfectly happy having only the House of Representatives being particularly democratic as such. You’d probably have to go to Jackson before you get someone who would have a big issue with it.

We simply have different sensibilities. I’m not sure the Founding Fathers wuld know what to make of any of us.

“…making sure that the superdelegates don’t hijack the will of the people…” - JG

It is indeed vitally important that the superdelegates follow the “will of the people”.

First step - is to make sure that the superdelegates take into consideration the “will of the people” in Michigan and Florida, who have been disenfranchised by the shenanigans of the Obama campaign -having blocked every attempt at a redo so the will of those people could be heard. Or do I understand Justin, that we just are not as concerned about the “will of the people” in Michigan and Florida?

Second The superdelegates need to reassert the “will of the people” in Texas - who spoke loud and clear in their preference for Clinton, but had their will perverted by a caucus process that gave more anti-democratic pledged delegates to Obama. Or Justin - do I understand that we do not care as much about the “will of the people” in Texas?

Third - Superdelegates need to take into consideration the anti-democratic nature of caucuses in general, as they disenfranchise voters who do not have time to spend 4-8 hours or more in a byzantine process just to express their preference and their will. Or Justin - do we just not care that much about the “will of the people” with jobs and/or kids?

It does not matter to me if the superdelegates get together in Denver to make their decision or in an earlier meeting in June. Just as long as they understand that their job is to represent the “will of the people” and not necessarily the undemocratically selected pledged delegates.