California resident Matt Johnson’s vote matters more than yours, as does Jimmy Carter’s. These men are just two of the Democratic Party’s 713 superdelegates, and they are the Democratic Party’s way of rewarding party officials and politically successful Democrats.

These men and women vote at the Democratic National Convention on July 25, and unlike pledged delegates, are not required to vote the way their state voted. One superdelegate, Howard Dean, tweeted that “superdelegates don’t ‘represent people.’ I’m not elected by anyone. I’ll do what I think is right for the country.” Essentially, the Democratic party has 713 people, about 15 percent of the total delegates up for grabs in this election cycle, who can do whatever they want for whatever reasons they want. In a tight race, such as that between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008, 15 percent could have easily swayed the outcome of the primaries, and, potentially, not in the direction of the popular vote.

The people deserve the power to choose their own leaders; the politically important already have powers of their own. Having superdelegates at all undermines the fairness that is supposed to be present in primary elections; it’s supposed to be “one person, one vote,” not “one regular person, one vote, one politician, special bigger vote.” The Republican and Democratic Parties run their primaries differently; the Democrats utilize superdelegates while the Republicans do not. Important members of the Democratic National Committee and successful Democratic politicians in Congress are given more power in their votes, meaning that the establishment garners more control over who will make it to the general election in November, stripping the public of power they are supposed to hold. By all means, reward the successful, but not like this.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, doesn’t use superdelegates in their primary process, and perhaps if the Democrats did the same, a few less people would accuse the Democratic Party of rigging their primaries.On both sides of the 2016 presidential race, there have been candidates that people thought would never have any shot at success when they first announced their bids for president. Democrats didn’t think Bernie Sanders could take any ground away from political giant Hillary Clinton, and both sides of the political spectrum thought that Donald Trump’s campaign was a joke. Trump is now the presumptive Republican nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders is down and out.

The Republican Party’s delegate counts, since they do not use superdelegates in their primaries, are concrete, unchangeable fact, while the Democratic Party’s delegate counts often include superdelegates, which can easily mislead many Americans. The delegate counts are assumed to be fact, but the superdelegates in those counts have done no more than say who they will vote for, and are free to change their minds at any time. Democratic superdelegates began pledging their support for Hillary Clinton months before the convention—months before they actually vote. This stacked the delegate numbers far in Clinton’s favor, leaving Sanders supporters wondering if he really had a chance. Whether or not a lack of superdelegates would have impacted the final delegate counts, no one will know, but the superdelegate system needs to be eliminated so that is not even a question. If people chose to abandon Sanders due to the pledged delegate count alone, that would be fair; if the people clearly did not want him, it would be fair for people to move to a stronger candidate. When the math becomes muddled and delegate counts include people who can change their minds at any time, the truth is not being told about who the people want to lead them.

Changing the Democratic Party’s primary system so that there are only pledged delegates would ensure that the people pick their candidate in the general election, rather than political veterans swayed by their own personal interests. Superdelegates are unnecessary, unfair, and misleading. Let the people pick their own leaders.