What it really boils down to..

Superdelegates.

I don't think that I am alone when I say that the idea of superdelegates is counterproductive to a democratic election process. What is the point of having candidates run these extensive campaigns, and creating all of the momentum surrounding the importance of primaries in determining the party nominee, when it looks as if the democratic nomination this year is going to rest on the decision of only 20 percent of the electorate. I understand that if neither Obama or Clinton are able to get the majority of delegates since they are running such a close race, that something must be done, but it does not seem fair that the decision be ultimately derived from the democratic elite. Why should members, governors, and senators have the last say? If the purpose is to enable a winner, then it would seem to make more sense that all delegates just be pledged delegates. If their role is to determine a majority, then by voting like everyone else, maybe a clear winner would be able to emerge. While some superdelegates may have already made a choice in their minds, I still believe that allowing them final say is giving their voice too much weight. Granted, I will admit that I could quite possibly just not understand the whole delegate process, but at a glance, I find it unsettling.