Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Putting the question another way: Should Super Delegates be bound to support the winners of state primary election, at least on a pro rata basis? It's a fair question and in the wake of New Hampshire, Robert Reich, a Bernie supporter, is calling for exactly that. But consider this...should all votes really be equal? Should a candidate who has classified himself as an independent his entire life, has bad mouthed Democrats regularly (e.g. Ed Schultz radio show), and now mobilized a segment of voters who historically don't vote, take over the Democratic Party's platform and candidacy? Do the established life long elected Democrats who have served their country and state admirably for decades, engaged in compromises and bi partisan legislation, did the hard party work behind the scenes, etc. just step aside as a new leftist ideology takes its place?
Many of those in power do not agree with Bernie's "political revolution", that is, if he fails he'll drag down the Democratic Party to be powerless and weak. It's a gamble that many Democrats are not willing to take. Hence the Super Delegate system protects against that. However, one might also argue that it stymies the introduction of fresh ideas into the party platform.
Bernie could certainly have run as a 3rd party candidate, but he chose to run as a Democrat instead, agreeing to the Democratic Party long established rules. Now they want to change the rules?