If the political prognosticators are right, after today’s big vote we could see a protracted battle in the Democratic race in which every last delegate will matter for a candidate to secure the nomination. If the delegate contest continues right up to the end, that could be a problem from a voting rights perspective.

As the nominating process has evolved to a broadly participatory event, we can no longer treat it as one that is divorced from the norms of voting rights. Forty years ago and more, the candidates for each party were largely picked by party bosses to the exclusion of the public. We don’t do that anymore. Or at least most people assume we don’t. But in too many ways, the nominating process continues to be unrepresentative of the voters.

The latest issue to emerge in this regard is the potential power of “superdelegates.” Comprising approximately 20 percent of the total number of Democratic delegates, in a close race like the one we have on our hands now, those “superdelegates” could end up picking the nominee. And who are these “superdelegates?” A range of party insiders, including elected officials (all Democratic governors and members of Congress for example), former presidents and vice-presidents, party committee members and influential party supporters.

A majority of delegates are chosen according to the popular will. Candidates must win contests in the pursuit of accumulating delegates from each state. The rules for the allocation of those delegates vary by state, but usually involve a combination of allocating delegates proportionately by the popular vote within a congressional district and by the statewide vote. Those delegates that a candidate wins are pledged to that candidate.

Not so the superdelegates. In addition to the automatic delegate slots for individuals like elected officials, a smaller number of superdelegates are people the state party chooses because they are a powerful voice for the party or are deserving of some reward for the work they have done on behalf of the party. Superdelegates are free to attach themselves to whichever candidate they wish. Although some superdelegates may feel pressure to reflect the will of their constituencies, they need not do so. Indeed, there is frequently a disconnect between a jurisdiction’s candidate of choice and who the superdelegates from that place are supporting.

The creation of such a large number of insider delegates has its origins in a push in 1980 to put a check on potential insurgent candidacies and keep some of the power within the party establishment. There is an argument in favor of having some continued insider influence on choosing the nominee. Perhaps it can be argued that elected officials and party leaders have some insights that the general populace does not. Moreover, many of the superdelegates are elected officials who have themselves been popularly elected.

But the closeness of the race between Obama and Clinton this year has revealed the current system to be a bit extreme. Clinton clearly had the inside edge from the beginning on the superdelegate contest, given the much greater establishment ties she and her husband have. Many of her superdelegates came on board early on, before the race really took off. But maybe this year, and maybe in future years, the everyday Democratic voters will not be in the mood for who the establishment supports. The superdelegates do have the option to heed that call and actually back the nominee they believe has the most support popularly, regardless of earlier commitments, but they are under no obligation to do so.

Given the inspiring enthusiasm with which voters have participated this year, it would be unfortunate if we came to the Democratic National Convention to find that the nominee is going to be picked by what many will see as the equivalent of the back room bosses.

Tova Andrea Wang is a Democracy Fellow at The Century Foundation.