"Superdelegates" are part of the system. Pledged delegates are part of the system. The system was created PRIOR to the election, laying out how the candidates would compete to win the nomination.
I originally wrote this as a comment to a post on Calitics dealing with superdelegates, that quickly devolved into calls for the superdelegates to "go with the will of the people".
But first - let's look at the WHOLE picture (and mainly contained in the 2008 Call to Convention - laying out the rules for this years Democratic nomination).
Florida and Michigan have no delegates in this mix because they violated the system and attempted to have their elections prior to Feb 5. Is this unfair to these states, although they KNEW going into the election, the consequences for violating the Feb 5th date?
ALSO in the system are rules for bonus delegates. If a state held an early process in 2004 and moves back, they get 15% to 30% more delegates. Or if a state just doesn't move up - for states/territories that hold their process between April 1 through April 30, there are awarded 5% bonus delegates, and for states/territories that hold their process between May 1 and June 10, a 10% bonus delegates. This was to encourage a decrease in the front-loading that the DNC knew would happen. So by this, Guam gets 1 extra delegate, Indiana +6, Kentucky +4, Montana +1, , North Carolina +24, Oregon +4, Pennsylvania +7, Puerto Rico +4, South Dakota +1, and West Virginia +2.
So is this unfair to the states that went earlier?
Is a process where California only gets 370 pledged delegates for its 36,457,549 residents vs Wyoming getting 12 pledged delegates for its 493,782 residents a fair system? Each California pledged delegate represents more than twice as many residents.
Then there are the superdelegates themselves. So - some people say for the future, we should get rid of superdelegates. All of them? Or should we still allow for some, like the DNC Chair? Or other DNC officers? US Senators - yes or no? State Governors?
As of Jan 5, 2008 (prior to Congressman Lantos passing), the 720 current superdelegates break down into 411 DNC Members, 259 members of Congress, 27 Democratic Governors, and 23 Party Leaders (like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Gephardt, former DNC Chairs, other former House and Senate Majority leaders, etc). The biggest bulk is the DNC members - and anyone who has seen the DNC roster understands that the DNC represents every state (typically state grassroot leaders as well as the Chair and Vice-Chair of each state) but ALSO all the various constituencies that make up the Democratic Party. 65 DNC members (At-Large DNC members) are appointed by the DNC Chair - ie, Howard Dean. But in making these appointments, you'll notice representation from various unions, ethnic minorities, LGBT leaders, environmental groups, educational associations, past key campaign and strategy advisors, etc.
Superdelegates are not a monolithic group. Not only from statistics, but also from anecdotes such as the two sisters serving in Congress (Loretta and Linda Sanchez) who are both superdelegates and each supporting one of the two candidates.
If they were able to "impose their will" to thwart a national popular vote - then heck yes, get rid of them. But in reality (which is not what the media is fond of), they are there as just ONE part of a balancing act to name a Democratic nominee for President in 2008 - a system that was fashioned prior to a single delegate being allocated.