superdelegates

I'm not sure how I feel about them, but they make me skeptical that I live in a democracy.

Of a little over 4,000 people choosing the Democratic party's nominee, almost 800 of them get to choose the candidate they personally favor based solely on the fact that they were a party leader in some form? That's about 1/4 choosing based on their own feelings.

Bush got to appoint the leaders of the EPA, and that didn't turn out well.

I read a quote about democracy recently that struck me as so true...

It might have been this one:

"Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear."

Really, how much does anyone know about what goes on in Congress? Only what the media chooses to cover, and the media is a restricted outlet with, chiefly, the same opinions and cautions (with the exception of the totally-obnoxious, manipulative, far-right asshats FOX News, and the obviously leftist [oh, but I love them!] NPR).

Doesn't it seem strange that in this situation, we're choosing "dictators" to choose our "dictators"? I mean, that's just lazy. And we're talking about the party's nominee for president here. I think it should be an unfiltered popular vote.

Don't get me wrong--I support democracy. I just think I support a more direct democracy than the one we've got.

I guess it comes back to the average citizen being too "stupid".

And when you think about the number of news hours Britney Spears takes up vs. everything-else-in-the-world.... well.

...anybody else made uncomfortable by the idea of superdelegates? Or want to explain the logic behind them?