Born in Lebanon, raised in Syria and a resident of Gaza and Ramallah as an adult, I covered elections as a journalist. The concept of elections was very simple in my pre-America experience: you go and cast your vote for the person you would like to govern you. But in the United States, I’m discovering, the concept is a lot more confusing.

American voters go to caucuses or primaries over the first six months of a presidential election year to cast their votes or debate among themselves. The news media report who won the popular vote and also what “really” counts— electing delegates who will decide on the voters’ behalf who should represent the political party in the general election. 

This seems like a weird idea. Why should I give up my right to a person who might vote against my will?

The delegate system is only for the two major parties, Republican and Democratic, which set their own rules. Third parties like the Green Party decide their nominees at conventions. But they have no chance, anyway, according to the Democrats, Republicans and major news media commentators.

And only the Democrats have influential superdelegates. They can support any presidential candidate they think is the right person to represent the party in the national election, even if it is different than someone the people in their home states chose.

The Republican Party has its own superdelegates, but they are only 7 percent of the delegates; and they have to commit to their state results.

Superdelegates are the Democratic Party’s most faithful workers and many are elected officials – legislators and governors. They are unelected delegates, however, because they were already chosen by and from party “regulars”, not by the vaunted “people” politicians claim to love and represent.

The debate about the superdelegates started in 1982 when the Democratic Party appointed a commission led by Gov. Jim Hunt; the committee recommended setting aside some delegates without being elected by the general public.

The party leaders wanted to have a say in which nominee would represent them in the selection of the leader of the free world.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the only socialist and dove in contention, won his tiny home state of Vermont and the bigger and more diverse Michigan, but former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has far more delegates than Sanders.

Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist and Howard Dean’s presidential campaign manager in 2004, said superdelegates were created for a reason.

Trippi said when the “guy from the neighborhood” won a race for party delegate, perhaps defeating a governor or congressman, it was embarrassing to the party stalwarts; so they changed the rules.

If we go back to the 2008 primaries and see how those superdelegates voted, you’ll find that the majority were pledged to Clinton, who started strong. After then first-term Sen. Barack Obama started to win, they flipped their votes, all in the name of party unity.

Obama, now in the last year of his eight as president, has recently been subtly nudging Sanders out of the race, according to the New York Times. Again, to unite the party and keep the White House for the Democrats, not to mention burnishing his legacy.

Meanwhile, MoveOn.org, a non-profit political organization, started a petition to stop superdelegates from manipulating the people’s right to choose their candidates. The petition gathered more than 180,000 signatures.

Ben Wikler, Washington DC director of MoveOn.org said the superdelegates concept will be dangerous for the nominee to enter the general election without the actual voter legitimacy.

When asked how this petition drive could impact the Democratic Party, Wikler said legislators in every state will know that their constituents want their voices to be heard. Common sense suggests that more MoveOn.org members support Sanders in the Democratic contest.

“The right thing to do for the superdelegates is to commit to supporting whoever wins the primaries and caucuses,” Wikler said.

Nevertheless, Wikler said, there is no question that superdelegates have an important voice to endorse a nominee as a prominent leader of the party, but they should not overturn the public voting.

Should the United States, the oldest democracy in modern history, reconsider the voting process and let the people and only the people decide their Commander-in-Chief through a direct vote?

I don’t know if I should thank GOP candidate Donald Trump or condemn his statements against Arabs and Muslims, but I am learning a lot about my new country. For example, these stirring words from the beginning of its Constitution: “We the people.” 

-Nader Alghoul is a freelance journalist