The common worry about the superdelegates is that they may overrule the choice of the Democratic voters at the convention. The Democratic Party's convention will have 4,047 voting delegates this year, of which 795, or 20 percent, will be superdelegates who are free to vote however they want. The anxiety over the superdelegates is that the candidate holding the lead in "pledged" delegates (that is, the normal delegates elected for each state who vote according to their state's primary results) could wind up losing the nomination because a majority of the superdelegates voted for the other candidate. Looking at the numbers, this scenario seems frighteningly possible.

By the count on RealClearPolitics.Com, Barack Obama currently leads in pledged delegates by about 6 percent. If this proportion remains stable for the rest of the primary season, he won't have enough votes to clinch the nomination without those from superdelegates. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, maintains a lead among the superdelegates who've announced their preferences publicly, ostensibly giving her an upper hand if the contest goes to the convention with the possibility that she could win despite having fewer pledged delegates. Many left-wing politicians and pundits fear that if this happened, it might give the convention a corruptly bargained, smoky backroom appearance that could cripple the nominee possibly as well as Democrats in other races around the country.
 
But according to Geraldine Ferraro, the former congresswoman and 1984 vice-presidential nominee, this is exactly how the superdelegate system is meant to work. She points to the historical context in which the superdelegate system was formed: after a ruinous nomination struggle between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy in 1980, the national Democratic Party felt it needed a way to exert more control over elections from the top.
 
Thus, the superdelegate. A reform committee established the position in 1982 to unify the party.  "These superdelegates," Ferraro explains, "are the party's leaders.  They are the ones who can bring together the most liberal members of our party with the most conservative and reach accommodation."  In essence, one of the prime reasons they were created was to solve nomination crises like this year's by settling on the candidate who has a better chance at winning in November. The superdelegates, mostly national politicians themselves, would know best what to do.

Ferraro asserts that the superdelegates were "created to lead, not to follow." But after speaking with Jane Kidd, the chairwoman of the Georgia Democratic Party and a superdelegate, it becomes clear that this understanding is not universally shared.
 
Kidd has announced that she will be voting for Obama at the convention. "He carried 66 percent of the vote in Georgia, and if he's the nominee, I think he would bring it in as a competitive state," she has rationalized. Indeed, it would be difficult for a superdelegate like Kidd to justify casting her vote for Clinton in a state that went so solidly for Obama.
 
Unlike Ferraro, Kidd thinks that if the superdelegates ended up deciding the nominee in the convention, then it would be "very damaging" to the nominee and the party. She stressed that "the primaries are the most important part of the process" and that in a convention based on delegates, the elected ones should always have the ultimate say in the nomination.
 
Her automatic role as a superdelegate came as a surprise to Kidd, who was elected as party chair in January 2007. At the time, she recalls, she had "never thought about it, never heard about it." She only learned of her capacity as a superdelegate earlier this year, when she began receiving inquiries about her position. She's had numerous phone calls and e-mails from representatives of both campaigns, including Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and President Bill Clinton; however, she has chosen to follow the voters of Georgia.
 
In light of the problems that have arisen within the superdelegate system, Kidd sees several possible reforms worth considering. For one, she suggests, a state-by-state, winner-take-all system could ease the process. Many Republican primaries are winner-take-all, and this may have helped them to arrive at a nominee much sooner than the Democrats. Also, lumping all the primaries into five "Super Tuesdays" could help focus campaigns and make more states competitive from the start.
 
However, Kidd added that the unexpected circumstances have had some unexpected benefits. Because of the superdelegate system, the states are getting much more attention both from the media and the candidates. And the ongoing election struggle has resulted in an interesting inversion, where the later-voting states on the calendar have much more power. "This time, the late states are important," Kidd says.
 
The split over the superdelegates centers on the question of whether their role should be proactive or passive. Ferraro believes the superdelegates should vote based on who they think would be best for the party, irrespective of any popular vote or delegate count. But Jane Kidd's experience demonstrates that this role is not so easily carried out in practice. Elected officials and party chairs are beholden to their constituents, and from their perspective, the only justifiable action is to echo the voters of their state.
 
For now, though, the convention rules have led the Democrats into a stumbling block that will have to be dealt with, and the superdelegates will likely end up playing a super-sized role in the nomination process.