Many Superdelegates made their decision to endorse Sec. Clinton even before Sen. Sanders had entered the race, and certainly before they had any idea it would be a contested convention. No doubt, at the time it seemed like the right thing to do, but the situation has changed dramatically.

First, the unexpected ascendancy of Donald Trump has given the race a dire urgency. Winning the election was important before; now it is critical. The most recent poll shows Trump beating Clinton in a head to head contest. That should give our Superdelegates pause. The stakes are extremely high.

Second, the ongoing FBI investigation continues to hang over the Clinton campaign. If you research the facts and allegations it’s clear that Clinton getting away unscathed is not a sure thing. The timing of the release of the FBI’s report is in the hands of FBI Director James Comey, so it’s a wild card, a known unknown. He is in no rush to finish the investigation before the Democratic National Convention in July.

Third, Sen. Sanders’ extraordinary campaign has galvanized a movement that seeks to reassert democratic control of our political process. It taps into a profound dissatisfaction with the status quo that cuts across party lines. His unsparing attack on money in politics has resonated. 84% of Americans think money has too much influence in our political process. Sanders is the only candidate with any credibility to address the issue. Recent revelations of what amounts to money laundering by the Clinton campaign serve to underline the unfair advantage that wealthy donors give to her campaign.

This is an election that Hillary cannot win. I don’t mean she can’t get enough votes for the nomination, or that she wouldn’t be able to beat Trump. I mean that “winning” is a word we use for success in a fair contest, and this contest is rigged. It is designed to give disproportionate influence to a wealthy elite. Hillary has played aggressively by the rules of the corrupt system — Sanders is challenging the rules themselves. A win in this corrupt game is a loss in the game of creating a fair political process and a truly representative government.

The legitimacy of the system itself is being challenged.

The goal for Sanders and the movement that has coalesced around him is to sever the connection between money and political power, to supplant the oligarchy with a democracy that will allow us to make decisions for the public benefit instead of private profit. That is indeed a revolutionary proposal and Superdelegates have to be calculating where the power lies. Is it with Hillary’s wealthy donors, or is it with the millions of voters who have thronged to the Sanders campaign donating $27 each? In a way, that’s like asking oneself “do we live in an oligarchy or a democracy?” Which one do we want to live in? Millions of Sanders supporters have already answered that question for themselves; Superdelegates need to do the same.

Many Democrats have been frustrated to learn that their nominating process is less than democratic. Instituted in the aftermath of George McGovern’s landslide loss to Richard Nixon, the Superdelegate system was designed to protect the party from nominating a popular candidate who would not be viable in the general election, by stacking the deck with establishment insiders who would presumably be able to avert catastrophe. In this election, due to the role of independent voters and the candidates’ “favorable” ratings, there is good reason to believe Sanders is the stronger candidate in the general election. It would be painfully ironic if the system designed in 1982 to prevent a general election meltdown ended up ensuring one in 2016.

The fact is that a political party can select a nominee any way they want. They are not required to have primaries or caucuses at all. I understand the outrage at the blatantly undemocratic effect of this political fact, but I hope we can agree not to take it out on the Superdelegates. They did not create the system, and putting their heads on pikes is not going to help. The appropriate response if you don’t approve of their actions is to run against them or support someone who will.

At the convention, if Sanders or Clinton should win a majority of the total delegate count with only pledged delegate votes, then the Superdelegate votes might be moot. However, going into a contested convention, it appears that the Superdelegates will be forced to select the nominee. The Democratic party establishment is on the hot seat whether they like it or not. The Superdelegates are going to be selecting a nominee, and it’s going to be very public, and whatever they do, someone is going to be displeased.

The party can allow itself to be transformed from within, welcoming all the young voters and the new energy that has propelled the Sanders campaign. In doing so, they would be re-establishing a connection to their roots as the party of the people. Sanders has given them an exquisite opportunity to make a graceful transition to a democratic future. But will they avail themselves of it, that is the question. I am optimistic. It is in the best interest of the party to align itself with the fervor of the Sanders insurgency. Do you want that on your side or working against you? It is also in the personal interest of the Superdelegates holding public office. They would like to be re-elected. Probably better to transition gracefully in this election than be thrown out on their keisters in the next. And if Superdelegates should stick with Clinton and she loses, they will surely be held accountable. Why take that chance?

It should be obvious by now that Sanders’ Democratic supporters are not going to cheerfully line up behind Clinton and the establishment she represents. Some will “hold their nose and vote for Hillary” but many won’t. Betting that they will in numbers adequate to defeat Trump is taking another dangerous risk. And a sizable number of independents are also committed to Bernie but swear they would never vote for Hillary. I haven’t seen any hard numbers, but it looks like the #NeverHillary crowd is not insignificant.

Coming under criticism for his endorsement of Clinton, Superdelegate Howard Dean made this now-famous tweet:

@D_Born @BernieSanders Super delegates don’t “represent people” I’m not elected by anyone. I’ll do what I think is right for the country

— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) March 5, 2016

Mr. Dean and the other Superdelegates are free, under the rules of the Democratic party, to vote as they wish. Will they agree that what is “right for the country” is to make the revolutionary change of getting money out of politics? I don’t know. But this is a great chance to be on the right side of history, to help the arc of the moral universe bend towards justice, to avoid a catastrophe in November… to join the political revolution by switching their vote to Sanders. And that is what we should courteously encourage them to do.

You can find their contact info at Dear Superdelegate,