Decision time for the Democrats

Who are these superdelegates?
Basically they're the party bigwigs, men like Jimmy Carter, George McGovern and Edward Kennedy. The list of Democrat superdelegates comprises all former Democratic presidents, vice-presidents and party leaders (a group, 19 in all, known as the Distinguished Party Leaders); all serving Democrat members of the US Senate (48) and US House of Representatives (222); all Democratic state Governors (31); 398 members of the party's national body, the Democratic National Committee; and a number of "add-on delegates" selected by state party leaders. But the crucial thing about these superdelegates, 796 in total, is that – unlike ordinary delegates – not one has been chosen by popular vote in the presidential nomination process.

And why have they suddenly assumed such importance?
Owing to the unusually tight race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Republicans, too, will have superdelegates at their national convention at the end of summer; but because John McCain has won so many elected delegates – "pledged" to support him as a result of his victories in state primaries or caucuses – he won't have to rely on unelected superdelegates to carry the convention. By contrast, the Democrat candidates are neck and neck. Barack Obama now has 1,598 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,446; but both need 2,025 to win, and though five states have yet to vote, their pledged delegates will be carved up too evenly for either to triumph. So everything will depend on how those 796 superdelegates – 20% of the total number of Democratic delegates to the convention – decide to vote.

How have the Democrats got in this pickle?
Partly by having two strong candidates appealing to different sections of the core democrat vote: Obama scoring highly among African Americans and white university-educated liberals; Clinton among the white working class. And partly owing to Democrat devotion to electoral fairness. In most Republican primaries or caucuses, the candidate who wins the most votes in a given state picks up all the delegates which that state sends to the national convention. But Democrat rules mandate that every candidate with more than 15% of the vote in the state in question should be allocated delegates in proportion to his or her share of the votes cast in the primary. So even when Obama came second, he still picked up delegates. Had the Democrats used the Republican system, Hillary Clinton would have come out on top weeks ago, because she won many of the most populous states.

But isn't relying on superdelegates a bit undemocratic?
In some ways, yes, since the race could now be decided behind closed doors. There's also concern about superdelegates being bought and schmoozed with offers of future favours. Jason Rae, a 21-year-old National Committee member from Wisconsin, says he has had pleading calls from both Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton (as well as a nice breakfast with Chelsea Clinton). Obama's campaign has given $694,000 to superdelegates' own campaign funds, and Clinton's $195,000. California superdelegate Steven Ybarra says he'll vote for the candidate who stumps up $20m for his Mexican-American voter registration scheme and will stay undecided until "someone shows me the money".

So why introduce such a system?
It was an attempt to reassert party control of the nomination process. Until the middle of the last century, very few states held open primaries: the process was dominated by powerful state party machines, which would select the delegates to be sent to the national convention in closed meetings (the traditional smoke-filled rooms) and then use their delegates (who would vote as instructed) to barter a deal at the convention. But as candidates began to form their own campaign organisations, the machines began to lose their grip over the selection of delegates, who were increasingly put forward by the candidates themselves. The conflict over delegate selection came to a head in the run-up to the 1968 election, when Senators Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, representing the liberal, anti-Vietnam war faction, felt their support across the country had been ruthlessly suppressed by the labour-dominated party machines loyal to Hubert Humphrey. After the election, their supporters successfully pushed for reform of how delegates were to be selected, and this ushered in the system of open primaries/ caucuses so distinctive of the US electoral system, under which presidential candidates are chosen by direct democracy rather than by party insiders.

What was so wrong with that?
The reformed rules favoured the rise of well-organised fringe candidates, and made possible the selection of unelectable or divisive ones. In 1972 the ultra-liberal Senator George McGovern of South Dakota was nominated, and went on to be trounced by Richard Nixon; in 1980 there was a contentious primary fight between President Jimmy Carter and Senator Edward Kennedy that split the party right up to the election; the Democrats lost heavily to Ronald Reagan. So in 1982 the party machine clawed back some control by introducing the superdelegate system (the term itself being initially derisory, refl ecting concern that a grandee's vote would now count the same as that of a pledged delegate representing thousands of voters). But the intention was that superdelegates would be "keepers of the party faith" – making up their own minds for the good of the party. In practice, though, many superdelegates feel that they cannot go against the wishes of voters in their states. Superdelegates, who previously favoured Clinton, have swung behind Obama in the past week – he's now ahead by 285 to 271, according to the Associated Press as his lead in the popular vote starts to look unassailable.

Should the superdelegate system be abolished?
YES
1 It allows for the undemocratic possibility of a candidate being chosen (eg Hillary Clinton) who has a minority of primary votes.
2 It makes the nomination look like a Washington stitch-up.
3 Superdelegates have been no better at picking winners than voters in the primaries. Superdelegates decided the very close 1984 race and picked Mondale: he lost heavily to Reagan.
NO
1 There's nothing undemocratic about giving the party a say: in the vast majority of the world's democratic parties, leaders are voted in by elected representatives, not by direct democracy.
2 It ensures the selection of a candidate the party can work with.
3 Superdelegates ensure the process cannot be manipulated by forces hostile to the party. ·