Do you support the Dem's super delegate system the way it is?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes, and allow me to explain why.  First of all, superdelegates only make up a very small fraction of the total number of delegates on the Dem side--so small that they have never been able to influence the nomination on their own (at least to date).  Their vote is equal to that of a pledged delegate, not greater.  And it only seems fair that elected officials who are members of the party should be seated as delegates and vote for whichever candidate they support. 

Because superdelegates are unpledged, they can change candidates at any time before the convention, and frequently have.  Although Hillary Clinton had a significant lead in superdelegates for most of the 2008 campaign, many of them switched over to Obama after it became clear he would win the nomination, and Obama ended up winning a majority of them at the convention.  So while it seems undemocratic to use superdelegates, their influence has been greatly overstated by the news media.  They help to maintain stability and prevent the nomination of candidates that can undermine party unity.  If the GOP had this system in place, then superdelegates may have been able to stop Trump from becoming the presumptive nominee.  But because they don't, the party now has a nominee who threatens to divide the party and ensure defeat in November.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

As a Republican, I wish we had the same system the Dems did, except with more superdelegates.

I don't have a huge problem with it.

A political party by definition consists not only of its supporters in the electorate (the voters), but also the party's elected officials in government (as well as the party as an organization). I don't think its fundamentally wrong for that other aspect of the party to have a say in the presidential nominating process. 

Maybe fewer, but this overall.

Completely agree with both of you.