The entire premise of the superdelegate system is 'we know better than you what we want for the country." It is at its core intrinsically undemocratic. It heralds an age where there was the uberclass who told the plebes what was best for them---which turns out being the best for the uberclass. This premise is usually invoked where the plebes are considered too stupid to know what is best for the country- so a class of people determine they are smarter and they are going to rule and everyone else is too stupid to tie their shoelaces. They are easily manipulated by the media who are good at creating villains and angels. So the only way that the people are going to really be represented in a true democracy is if the superdelegates are removed from the voting equation. It could be they have access to better information- which is why they know better or think they do. But that is a failure of transparency in government. That is precisely why Hillary isn't obviously a fan of transparency and plays hide and seek with government materials on a private bathroom closet server. It is a faux aristocratic model of government where the people don't get to pick, the leaders pick the rulers to pay themselves, and everyone else gets to be happy victims of their 'charity.' It is the Korruptocrat antithesis of true democracy.
We are at a serious crossroads where we have to decide whether we are truly going to be faithful to the vision of the founding fathers or whether we are going to turn the government over to whomever can steal elections the most undetected way and tilt the scale with the superdelegate thumb on it. If there is an extra superdelegate count those superdelegates should be honor bound to vote the way that their constituencies voted. But even that tilts the scale by placing more than a one man/woman vote to certain regions that have superdelegates. Why should those areas count more than areas that don't have superdelegates.
We have a serious problem when the leader of one party, which is the ruling party, can endorse someone that his own Justice Department has under criminal investigation for serious reasons having to do with the National Security. There is something so seriously wrong with that it threatens the Rule of Law.
We are at a serious crossroads now, and we have to decide whether we are a country which is truly Democratic, with full self-reliance and self rule, or are we victim to a Korruptocrat enterprise, where he who has the most money can buy the most superdelegates to win by hook or by crook.
The protest vote against such a rigged system this year leans toward voting the representative of the party who did not rise to power under the superdelegate system but had the overwhelming popular vote in his party.
Every past President has made money in America before by creating enterprise, some inherited great wealth (the Roosevelts), whether they were actors, or oilmen or lawyers or other businessmen. They understood capitalism and how the economy functions, how money is made and grows, and how trade worked.
No past president built wealth by posing as mendicants to solicit donations globally to keep the vast majority of the money for themselves instead of the charities it espoused to garner support -from foreign governments and monied business interests, whether hostile or not to the interests of the country. No past President raised huge sums of money courting foreign hostile governments for hand-outs to run campaigns.
There is something foul in the state of denmark.
And if we intend to keep this Republic we need to get a grip and stop the madness.