As has been widely fretted over in the press, it is possible that the Democratic nomination race is so close that it will be determined by 800 “superdelegates.” What makes this troubling beyond the principles of popular democracy at stake is that the whole superdelegate process is utterly lacking in transparency.

Unlike regular delegates, who are selected through a popular vote and bound to a candidate accordingly, superdelegates are not voted on by anyone but other party insiders (except to the extent that with respect to the ones that are elected officials, they have attained their positions through their own elections). They are complete free agents who may back any candidate they wish, whenever they wish, from before the beginning of the process to the convention. And while some of them are well known governors, senators, and former presidents, a great many of them are little known local elected officials, state and local party members, and other myriad people who have been helpful to the party’s cause in some way or another. (The same could be said, by the way, of delegates who are voted in through the caucus system—they are are often local party activists and ultimately are free to “realign” their allegiances.)

If the intentions of the superdelegates are a mystery, so is how and why some of these people were chosen to be superdelegates. It is clear that, under Democratic National Convention rules, major elected officials are automatically superdelegates. The selection of the rest, however, is murky. Superdelegates can be chosen by state parties in a few different ways. It is hard to tell if any of the superdelegates are being given the responsibility to cast such a critical vote in who our presidential nominees are because they have some superior insight into who would make the best president or would fare best in a general election, or if it is for some other, more pedestrian reason. A few superdelegates have business ties to the candidates. Already, it is clear that the two candidates are “wooing” these lesser known superdelegates through all sorts of means.

It would be incredibly unfortunate if, in a year in which we have seen historic turnout and enthusiasm for the voting process, the nominee ended up being chosen by insiders with no public accountability. For many it would be downright disillusioning.

Short of actually changing party rules to address this worrisome outcome, there is one step that could be immediately and easily taken through the power of the Internet—making the superdelegate process more transparent to the voting public. Right now, nobody knows who the superdelegates are; nobody knows which of them have already pledged support to a candidate and why; and nobody knows why people other than major elected officials were given these slots at all. This information is very hard to find—there is next to nothing about the superdelegates on the Web site of the Democratic National Committee, for instance. There is one new fledgling independent blog site that is trying to put some information out there, and there is some information on Wikipedia, to the extent that can be relied upon. The Washington Post now has a list of the names of the superdelegates by state, but the information is minimal—it does not even include whether a superdelegate has pledged to a candidate or not.

This lack of transparency could be easily rectified There could be a Web site dedicated to identifying each and every superdelegate, providing information on who these people are and explaining why they have been given this power. The site could identify superdelegates who have already pledged, with a brief discussion from the superdelegate about what the basis was for his or her choice. The site could be updated in real time whenever a new superdelegate pledged support for a candidate. At least this way the individuals involved would know they are being watched by the voters and would hopefully feel somewhat accountable to them.

If an ad hoc rule change were possible, the best one available might be to require the superdelegates to pledge to the candidate who has won the votes of a majority of voters in the superdelegate’s state. Under party rules, the delegates voted in through the primary and caucus process are often allocated by the popular vote within a congressional district. This has led to the anomalous result that a candidate could decisively win a state and yet win a bare majority or not a majority at all of the delegates. To mitigate the biases in the system this has caused as well as address the superdelegate issue, the best option might be to lean hard on superdelegates to pledge to the candidate who won the statewide popular vote in the state they come from. This makes particular sense, given that some superdelegates are statewide elected officials and some are local officials or party committee members, but all of them come from a state and are part of a statewide delegation.

Looking ahead to 2012 and beyond, the party may not have to do away with all influence over the selection of the nominee completely. It may not even have to eliminate the superdelegate system—perhaps it could be cut down to size by limiting superdelegates to current major office holders. Such a move would reduce the number of superdelegates, lowering the chances that they would hold the margin of difference in their hands. And it would limit the insider control to those who at least are accountable to the voters in that elected officials represent the people and know they must answer to them if they wish to be re-elected.

In truth, because of their impacts on voting rights, the problems of this primary season—the frontloading of the schedule, the undemocratic character of caucuses, and now the problem of the superdelegates—show that the entire nominating system needs to be seriously reassessed. But for now, however, greater transparency is one simple step the party could take to ensure the voters that they are, under these most unprecedented circumstances, adjusting their practices to create the most democratic system possible.

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