Methods of allocating Superdelegates - "U-pick-em"

[George II]

As the tally of pledged delegates has progressed and Clinton's lead has increased, we've seen an "evolving" philosophy for allocating Superdelegates.

So, there are essentially three ways of allocating them - allowing them to use their own judgement, allocating them proportionally bsed on the "will of the people", or allocating them "winner take all" to the candidate that wins a state.

Looking at ONLY the states/territories that have already voted, here's how those Superdelegates would be allocated:

Own Judgement* - Clinton 374, Sanders 33, Clinton +341
Proportional - Clinton 228, Sanders 194, Clinton +34
Winner take all - Clinton 313, Sanders 109, Clinton +204

Clinton leads using each of the three scenarios, so which should be used?

Pick your poison!!!

*15 have not yet committed

[bkkyosemite]

1. Or doing away with them.

[George II]

2. In that case Clinton STILL would win.

[auntpurl]

3. Sure, let's do that!

If you remove the SD count, I'm pretty sure Hillary has already clinched with pledged delegates. So...great!

[Sheepshank]

4. SD help to ensure that outliers and nonparty swarming are not those that pick the party nominee

I actually like having them. And for the reason in my title, do not feel they should be tied to voters. There are several reasons, but for example, this year Idahoans were able to vote for both Dem and Rep...there were strategies employed that had nothing to do with picking the nominee that would best represent and have the strongest support for the Dem Party. I would hate to see Super Delegates apportioned based on those false/manipulating voters. Yet the SD could counter those actions. The only way I would like to see SD be eliminated is if:
1. Only Dems pick Dem candidate
2. Each voter can only vote for one candidate per Primary season.
3. No more caucus states.
4. Standardized voting in all states....I'm open to this one.