Should the superdelegates choose the opposing candidate, who doesn’t have quite the number that the first candidate has, they would be choosing a candidate that was not democratically selected to lead the party.

There seems to be no end in sight.

After winning ten state primaries and caucuses straight, Barack Obama is not only the frontrunner in the Democratic candidate race, but may also be the final nominee should Hillary Clinton do poorly in the next two races (Ohio and Texas, March 4). Without those wins, Clinton has only one other option: the superdelegates.

Superdelegates are party members and leaders who were deemed loyal enough to have a vote in the Democratic National Convention, where the eventual nominee will be formally nominated by the party, held later this year in Denver, Colorado. Their votes are important – they ensure that a frontrunner in the Democratic race for president who does not share the attitudes of the party cannot be selected as the party’s nominee.

This is a good safety net to have. However, this election year has proven that the superdelegates system may corrupt the system that is supposed to have, in part, a democratic basis.

With both Clinton and Obama splitting many of the states, the primary results will leave us without a candidate who will garner the necessary 2,025 delegates to gain the nomination.

That leaves the Democrats with the possibility of a “brokered convention,” where the delegates must vote and revote until they can choose a candidate that everyone can agree on. This can mean that NEITHER candidate will receive the nomination, though that is probably unlikely. What’s more likely to happen: the superdelegates side with a candidate who didn’t receive the highest vote of regular delegates.

Consider this scenario: neither candidate has the necessary 2,025-delegate count to win the nomination. But perhaps one candidate has many more votes than the other – a substantial amount, though not the required number. Should the superdelegates choose the opposing candidate, who doesn’t have quite the number that the first candidate has, they would be choosing a candidate that was not democratically selected to lead the party.

That may be Clinton’s only option, should she continue to lose the primary races for president. She may not win the most delegates, but she may be able to court more superdelegates than Obama can, especially with her husband’s influence over many of the party’s leaders who previously relied on him to campaign for them.

Should that scenario play out, or should the exact opposite happen (with Obama having less delegates than Hillary and gaining the support of more superdelegates), would the Democratic base be able to stomach it? Would those who came out to the polls in record numbers be able to vote for a nominee in the general election who the majority of voters never even selected to lead them in the first place?

This is exactly what the Democratic Party leaders are afraid of currently. If the superdelegates end up choosing the eventual nominee, it could be catastrophic for them politically, especially if the superdelegates don’t pick the “leader” of the two.

There are solutions to this problem. First, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) could mandate that all superdelegates must make their pick before a certain date, to ensure that the states and their primary voters have the “last say.” This would still allow the superdelegates to pick their preferred candidate while granting the states the right to pick the delegates last, thus making it appear as though democracy ruled the day.

The second option is my preferred one: the superdelegates should consider voting for whoever gets the most pledged delegates between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Choosing who should win this way would ensure that the people’s voices are still what matters most to the Democratic Party.

Right now, Obama has a commanding lead over Clinton, but that could change in a few weeks’ time. Whether Barack or Hillary has the most pledged delegates in the end, the determining factor over whom the party should choose should come down to who the people have selected as their candidate.

Both candidates would represent party attitudes and beliefs as our commander-in-chief. However, the party would not be doing either candidate any favors by selecting them over the preferred candidate of the people.

> Comments