I didn't think that even pledged delegates had to vote a specific way.
that would be called a "faithless" delegate
and I think that would be a bad idea
the way we elect Presidents,
I think there are something like 540 electors
one elector for each electoral college vote
well, an elector could vote different than the way he or she was selected to by their State, There have been"faithless" electors
Faithless elector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
one or two faithless electors could have flipped the 2000 election
I don't like the concept of "faithless" electors or delegates.
I guess you think it would be a good idea for the superdelegates to go contrary to the majority of the pledged delegates.
We have Statewide primaries here.
Obama won Iowa, South Carolina, Virginia to name a few, I am sure you are aware that he won the most states.
I would expect the superdelrgates from those states to respect the will of their citizens and support Obama the winner of the elections in their States.
I also would expect the superdelegates from New York, Massachusetts, California, West Virgina to respect the will of their citizens and support Hillary the winner of the elections in their States.
Come November the "electors" will respect the will of the voters in their states and vote the same way their Statewide elections turnout.
So choosing a candidate by superdelegates voting for the loser is odd.
This will be the first time that has happened, the loser gets the nomination.