Alternate Delegates (Super Delegates) can't vote until the Convention. All 750 of them could cast their ballot for either Hillary or Obama.  There's no way to know who will be the nominee until the Convention seats Michigan and Florida and the Alternate Delegates cast their vote at that time.

There's more...

Is Jimmy Carter Letting Democratic Voters Down??
Posted on April 15, 2008 by GRL

On Monday (April 14) I caught a brief comment by Jimmy Carter about the Nepal elections on the BBC World Service. Carter, who was in Nepal to monitor the polling, said that whatever problems occurred had "paled" compared to the overall success of the vote. (Unfortunately, the audio report is no longer available.)

In a report issued on April 15 entitled Trip Report by Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to Nepal: April 6-14, 2008, Carter wrote in great detail about all the efforts made to ensure a free and fair election.

   <We have maintained a staff of long-term election observers for more than fifteen months. They have visited all 75 districts and had an opportunity to become familiar with the entire nation and its various and conflicting political factions.</p>

   After our arrival from Atlanta, we joined Dr. John Hardman and began receiving extensive briefings from former U.S Ambassador Peter Burleigh, David Pottie, Darren Nance, Sarah Levit-Shore, and others. Most of our 60 international observers, from 21 nations, had been deployed to the more remote areas by helicopter, all-terrain vehicles, and by foot. My co-chairman was Dr. Surakiart Sathirathai, former deputy prime minister of Thailand, who was a key partner and essential to the mission's success. Our team was joined by international observers from the European Union, Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL), and by several thousand domestic observers. ...

   On election day we visited as many polling sites as possible in the valley that surrounds Kathmandu and found the election commission's procedures were being largely followed. There were long and separate lines of men and women in a celebratory mood, the total turnout being above 60 percent. Despite some problems, our observers throughout the nation found the same situation among a total of 400 sites visited. Ballot boxes were required to be delivered to 75 central locations for counting, and we observed a number of these procedures.>

Impressive, no?

There's more...

The Obama camp argues two different sides on the issue of the popular will of the voters, depending on whether the outcome will be good for them or not.  

Look at the total delegates in Texas and see how they're being distributed. Obama lost the primary where 3,000,000 Texans voted, but because of a quirk in the system, 50,000 Obama supporters came back later to caucus and against the "will of the voters", changed the delegate count to give Obama a majority, even though he had lost the state by a 100,000 votes.

That's the rub, we have a system where one candidate wins the popular vote but still loses the tally for delegates because of caucus voting "Party activists and insiders". Will of the voters be damned.

Kind of flies in the face of the Obama campaign's fevered sentiment of letting the voters govern the outcome doesn't it?

Mr Obama's strategy of marshaling every effort in the caucuses has been exceedingly effective. Every caucus has been overflowing with his supporters. That, in large part, accounts for the tremendous number of pledged delegates that he's amassed.

That strategy is consistent with the intended purpose of the caucus system which, is to allow committed party activists, like the super delegates, to substitute their judgment for the that of the unwashed masses.

Winning without the popular vote is as American as electoral colleges and gerrymandering.

"Super delegates" were invented and given considerable power in order to calm the runaway enthusiasm of temporary, extreme, callow primary voters who might elevate an unelectable general election candidate. '"Super voters" in the caucus system were created to give Party activists and insiders a greater effect on the choice of a candidate than a direct vote would allow.

Both Obama and Clinton's supporters can argue that if the Democratic party had wanted a one person one vote system of picking a candidate, that is what would have been chosen.

Honestly, how can the Obama campaign even argue with the role "super delegates" can play? Even though they have lost the majority of the direct primaries, their entire delegate lead is entirely due to the "super voters" in various state caucuses who came out for Obama?

Their public gloating about the Texas delegate count shows the two faced hypocrisy behind the Obama campaign statements about this flawed primary - caucus - super delegate system .  

"One person - One vote" is their impassioned argument - UNLESS - it's to their advantage to say the exact opposite thing.

There's more...