the convention is on. Each cycle the system is contentious and the reason it is contentious is that those delegates and the candidates abuse the actual position of the unpledged delegates and in doing so defeat the purpose for them.
They have no vote until the convention is seated. The votes they have are defined as 'uncommitted' or 'unpledged' and not as 'Super'. If they pledge or commit, logic tells us they are no longer filling the role they are supposed to fill, they are claiming power to pledge when they actually have no such power.
Those delegates, in theory, are there in case of emergency. Three way ties, a candidate who becomes unelectable late in the process that sort of thing. By pushing their own importance in the process the Party is going to end up losing that emergency valve because it is being used daily, habitually and would then be useless in actual emergency.
We should not have any unpledged delegates because they don't know how to behave. If they did, it might be a good idea, but they don't. They abuse that position and use to to stack the races prior to convention, claiming to be casting 'votes' that by law do not exist until the convention.
The whole thing is demonstrated by the fact that the Party rules call them 'unpledged' but they call themselves 'Super' while making pledges they are not really supposed to make, they are to be unpledged. But they pledge. And say 'we are Super powers'.