The Democrats in 1972 made the primary system truly democratic with a small D. The landslide loss by McGovern created the ridiculous super delegate category that was supposed to prevent the voters from making a so-called foolish decision. However, giving the party hacks a big vote in a close primary is the worst possible scenario for the voters in the primaries. What were the Democrats thinking in 1976 when they changed the rules? Did they think that an undemocratic tie breaker would be good for the Party?
Clearly a majority of the elected delegates should be the only way to choose a nominee. Otherwise, the winner of the elected delegates could possibly lose the nomination which would be a disaster for the Party. Can you imagine either Obama or Clinton losing the nomination to the super delegates if either wins the majority of elected delegates? It would confirm what Will Rogers said in the 1930s. "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
Since the DNC has voided the Florida and Michigan delegates totaling 366, it can easily void the 842 super delegates. Taking those numbers out of the total would make the elected delegates the only basis for winning the nomination. It would require the nominee to get 1421 out of the total of 2841 elected delegates to get the nomination. It would eliminate the controversies created by the unintended consequences created by foolish party elders that made up these rules over 30 years ago. It would also end the controversy and need to do a redo of Michigan and Florida. More importantly, the loser of the this process would not have any complaints because the winner would truly have a majority of the elected delegates.
I am hopeful that Howard Dean will have the wisdom to know that this is the fairest possible solution to this highly contested primary and the only way to prevent a split party in November.