From superdelegates to no delegates to switching delegates, Democrats are facing an uncertain primary season where anything can happen.  And that’s not a good thing.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue their heated campaign that is unlikely to be resolved before the convention this summer.  That time leaves many questions about the Democratic Party’s primary process and how democratic it really is.  If the candidate who wins the popular vote doesn’t win the nomination, how credible can the Democratic Party be?

Several issues plague the Democratic nominees.  Each issue leads to a situation where questionable politics would result in a questionable nominee.  After two elections where Democrats watched Republicans manipulate and possibly suppressed the vote, Democrats risk doing the same to their own primary.  The winner of this doesn’t become president - he or she gets to run for president.  If the chosen nominee doesn’t win the popular vote, Democrats will lose all credibility to criticize Republican election tactics and worse, reveal that they are so inept at leading, they can’t run their own party.

For disclosure, I am a strong liberal supporting Obama.

The first issue plaguing Democrats are the superdelegates: party insiders who can vote for whichever candidate they choose.  With 796 superdelegates able to vote either way, it is likely the nominee will be chosen by who wins the majority of superdelegates, contradicting the winner of the popular vote.

Second, the Democratic Party stripped Michigan and Florida of its delegates because both states rescheduled their primaries against party rules, a decision supported by both Obama and Clinton.  Neither Obama or Clinton campaigned in either state, though Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot where Clinton left her’s on.  Clinton won both states with sizeable margins and has since changed (flip-flopped) her position, requesting both states have their delegates reinstated, most of which would go to her.  Obama and then-still-running John Edwards could have run competitive campaigns in these states and lessened her leads in the states, if not upset her wins, but since neither candidate campaigned, neither state got to make an informed choice (40 percent of Michigan voters voted for Uncommitted instead of for Clinton).

Lastly, Democratic Party rules allow pledged delegates - delegates assigned based on how their district voted - to switch their allegiance, voting against their district leading both candidates to try poaching each other’s delegates.

As Democratic strategist and superdelegate Donna Brazile puts it: "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party."

Democratic leaders will likely try to revamp the primary process after this mess, but that will be too late to fix numerous missteps for this cycle.  Michigan and Florida are crucial swing states who could punish Democrats for ignoring them come November, not counting the fact both candidates threw away valuable campaigning time to prepare their general election campaigns, giving Republicans an edge.  Republicans demoted both states to half their delegates, a fairer arrangement.  But since voting is done, simply reinstating delegates would tarnish the outcome.  Any compromise risk not only alienating the candidates, but the voters who have to be kept interested until November.

Democrats should set the example for the country.  Whichever candidate wins the popular vote (preferably vote, but pledged delegates are a close match) should win all the superdelegates (why do these people get to vote twice).  Michigan and Florida can either have caucuses or primaries to redo their votes or just don’t count them.  It’s a sad situation where no one will be happy, but those are the only fair options.  And then Democrats should spend the next four (or eight) years making sure the next primary reflects the will of people without question.  Because that’s how democratic elections work.