So, by any numerical measure, Clinton has indeed won "popularly". So I am curious, what did you mean by "overriding the popular vote"?
[1] http://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegates-overview/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
Stephen Sekula at 2016-06-09T09:32:33Z
>> Alexandre Oliva:
“I read about delegates threatening to vote clinton in spite of rules determining that, per the outcomes of their states' elections, the vote delegated to them should go to sanders. that sounds very undemocratic to me”
First, TL;DR. :-)
I see. The pledged delegates (the ones awarded by proportion of vote) are bound to vote as pledged in the first round at the primary. If no consensus emerges, they are free to vote as they wish in the second. That's the way the party works, if I remember correctly. The super-delegates can vote any way they like, but are a smaller number (by a lot) compared to the pledged delegates. It's representative democracy, as it is typically executed in the US: they are representing a viewpoint, but only for so long. :-)
To be fair to this way of doing it, look at the way the Republican presumptive nominee has been behaving vs. what the Republican party actually wants. Numbers tell us that Trump is splitting his own party basically in half, even after his nominee status was sealed, which is a huge threat to Republican victory in the November election. Now, I bet the half that opposes his major policy points wish that their delegates would do something related to "acting on conscience" for the good of the party. One might even make an argument in this case that delegates that changed their allegiance, assuming there were another candidate in the race for Republican nominee, would be acting on behalf of Democracy as whole.
So you might imagine something similar in the Democratic Party. If Sanders were seen as a threat to Democracy, in the way that Trump might be viewed that way, you can imagine that on behalf of Democracy (the greater good) the delegates might abandon the popular vote and vote what they believe is right. Actions like this (not at the party level, but at the level of Government branches) have helped usher in Civil Rights in many forms in the US. Civil Rights for one group or another were not the popular opinion, but powerful movements by smaller but important actors changed that course in a way that went against the popular vote in the long view were seen as positive for Democracy.
So I take the long view. Should the Democratic Party change its name (pretend this is 4 weeks ago, for the sake of this question)? I don't know. If Sanders were as big a threat to the Constitution as Trump might be, I would hope that the party delegates would act in a way to preserve Democracy, not threaten it further. In that case, it might them even more Democratic than they already want to believe they are.