From reading this and other blogs, I get the impression that there are "fair" rules that must be followed, because they were agreed to in advance (whether or not they are democratic), and other "unfair" rules that must be patently opposed, whether or not they were agreed to in advance (because they are anti-democratic). Let's summarize below the fold.
Fair Rule Number 1
States should be able to select their delegates via caucuses rather than primaries, even if that effectively disenfranchises many thousands of workers and caregivers.
Fair Rule Number 2
A difference in votes of a few thousand people in a caucus should be allowed to count for as many delegates as a difference in votes of tens of thousands of people in a primary.
Fair Rule Number 3
Delegates should be assigned to geographical areas based in large part on how many people voted Democrat in that area in 2004, thus disproportionately restricting the impact of communities that are growing in size and turning out to vote more now, such as the Latino community and Asian-American communities.
Fair Rule Number 4
Delegates (including super delegates) should be stripped from two of the largest and politically most important states in the country because the Republican-dominated legislatures in those states voted to move up the primary dates.
Unfair Rule Number 1
Super delegates should have a say in the nomination process. (This is unfair because they might potentially choose to throw their votes to the candidate who is likely to end up with the most popular votes in the entire nominating process rather than to the candidate who might end up with the most pledged delegates.)
Have I understood it correctly?