Superdelegate Primary?

Just heard the guv of Tennessee suggesting this. Purported benefit is just to get their votes in earlier in order to wrap up the race sooner. I guess another benefit would be that by committing early, it allows a state to go last and thus at least appear to cast the "deciding" vote.

Stikes me as a totally dumb idea: It will not necessarily shorten the race. It will artificially advantage whichever candidate is peaking in their superdelagate popularity. Every vote in the majority is a deciding vote. It seems to change rules in midstream (although it does not necessarily have to really do so). It adds another technical stage where there are opportunities for distortions to creep into the process. It sacrifices one of the democratic rationales of having superdelegates: to be able to account for and reflect changes in circumstance occurring between the other primaries and the convention. If a hundred people get together and votes to elect themselves as their own hundred delegates, can you think of a more spectacularly transparent waste of time? If it's "winner take all" then the force of superdelegate votes gets amplified in relation to that of pledged delegates from the states, distorting the system to make it less democratic.

Ultimately, it represents an impatience with letting the democratic system set forth in the rules take its course. Just live with it, abide by the result, and in the mean time, if you want the focus to shift from internal squabbling to confronting the opposing party, then just get on with it and stop fussing about with internal processes.