I would be more outraged about unelected SuperDelegates deciding the party's Presidential nomination if a disproportionate voice wasn't already being given to the barely-democratic election of delegates from states which hold caucuses, instead of real-life primaries. To put it another way, why shouldn't there be an institutional voice of the Party that has a say in who the Party nominates, when we've already given independents, Republicans and other non-Party members a voice in many of the contests to date.

If either Obama or Clinton run the table and build a clear lead in the remaining primaries, and then the SuperDelegates vote for the loser, then I'll be upset. But if, as both campaigns are projecting, the two end up almost even after the final primary in early-June, that will be a clear sign that there is no consensus within the Party as to who should be nominated. SuperDelegates strike me as being a fairer way of breaking a tie then, say, flipping a coin or shooting penalty kicks.