With Super Tuesday now behind us, 24 states have voiced their choice of party presidential nominees and the Democratic race is left decidedly inconclusive. With the Democratic campaigns now proceeding into rarely traversed territory (like Seattle), both Clinton and Obama are scrambling for every delegate they can get.

With the race so closely tied and the delegate count of such importance, attention is now focused on the role of so-called “superdelegates” in the primaries’ outcome. Created after the Democratic Party nominations of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter in 1972 and 1976 — both candidates considered unacceptably rebellious by Democratic Party officials — superdelegates make up 20 percent of the vote at the Democratic National Convention, their role lets party officials control popular zeal for candidates they find unsuitable, comprising about 800 elected officials and party leaders, superdelegates provide the party with a considerable, and some say inequitable voice in the selection of the Democratic presidential nominee.

Since there is no clear front-runner in the Democratic primary, superdelegates will be a deciding factor in which candidate is nominated — a clear usurpation of democratic principles. Beyond the fact that not all superdelegates are elected, the function of superdelegates is essentially babysitting the judgment of Democratic voters, a control more often attributed to that good-‘ol-boy club, the Republican Party.

It’s unfortunate enough that the American electorate must be restricted to a two-party system. To impose constraints in the form of superdelegates is only to further stifle political diversity and entrench the political elite against the opinions of the electorate. National parties should not narrow the political spectrum to beliefs and policies that are solely consistent with their own.

Granted, party officials are likely more familiar with the politics of Washington than the average voter, but such familiarity, or even expertise, does not justify the exclusion of the popular vote. And to trade democratic representation for political experience is to accept both its benefits and its drawbacks. While experienced politicians and party officials may possess unique insights, they also possess vested interests in what politician gets the nomination.

Both the Obama and Clinton camps are waging covert campaigns for superdelegates, with Clinton supposedly using her daughter’s influence to petition individuals. As if interest trading within campaign donations wasn’t enough, superdelegates threaten the further manipulation of politics — an exploitation unregulated by campaign finance disclosure forms and financing reform laws. With these campaigns for superdelegates being waged behind the scenes, accountability has shrunk and the expectations for the quid pro quo are exacerbated.

In addition, granting such supervision to superdelegates not only erodes the egalitarian quality of the primary, but also contributes to a climate of stagnation in the political scene.

Politicians may find their own convictions compelling, but it’s an insult to the voting public, and a violation of voting equality, to enforce such an ideological leash.

In the same way many people in this country are fond of defending their Second Amendment right to bear arms, progressives should devote greater concern to usurpations of less corporeal — but far more significant — power. Thomas Jefferson once said that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.

The role of superdelegates chains the convictions of the people to the orthodoxies of the past, preventing a healthy progression of political principle.

In the most exciting primary season in living memory, it would be a shame for it to be determined by the vote of a political elite.

I, for one, cast my vote for a return to democratic principles and the elimination of the superdelegate system.

[Reach columnist Sarah Gaither at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]