You think the argument is about following rules per se. I never signed any Democratic party contract that makes me think that all its rules are good rules.

For example-- I am uncomfortable with the whole idea of superdelegates, which smack uncomfortably of the smoke filled rooms of nominations past. They are a relic that holds no proper place in the modern candidate selection system.

However, I'm quite open to variant electoral systems-- open vs. closed primaries, caucuses versus secret ballots. They do reach slightly different results, and that's intentional. I see no particular reason to preference one over the other.

ADAMIANI,

I am so happy that you wrote what you did. I do not approve of the current electoral system we have in place either. It is high-time we have a national re-negotiation of the electoral processes for the national-level officials.

I am quite tired of the arguments made that everything is legal and fair purely because they are the rules, (aka laws). Not all laws are created equal, or are fair. It is in times like this that people get angry over the DNC and RNC committee rules, yet the common people will forget about it afterwards. People - the time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining.

I think the poster is quite correct- open primaries, closed primaries and caucuses all have a place in the nomination process.

A primary measures the breadth of candidates support a caucus measures the depth of support. Lets face it poll after poll shows that more people believe in the Democratic agenda (if not identified as the Democratic agenda) yet Republicans have consistently beaten Democrats. The simple answer is that their depth of support is much greater than that of Democrats. People who show up at caucuses are also the ones likely to show up to do the door to door canvassing, phone banking etc as opposed to the drive by primary voter.

We should also remember we are electing a PARTY nominee. The constitution makes no mention of Parties. So is it fair that those who are die hard party supporters who do all the heavy lifting have the same say as those who kind of show up on primary day.

Bottom line- all these different systems provide a different view of the electorate. The ideal candidate is one that can win all the different types of contests.

This is one of the better threads I've read in a while. But I want to take it a step further. Crazyv correctly points out that primaries illustrate the breadth of a candidate's support and caucuses illustrate the depth of the support (an excellent and elegant way to describe that, which I will be appropriating for my own use!).

But there is another issue that needs to be illustrated, which is a candidate's ability to work with Congress and other members of the party. We've seen for 8 years the necessity of this. Bush gets everything he wants because his party in Congress votes as a solid phalanx and never betrays him. When Democrats are in office with a Democratic Congress...let's just say things don't usually work that way (see: 1993-1994). So it is critically important that a candidate be able to work with party leaders as well, and a demonstration of who can win more of that contest is also useful in determining who will be the best nominee.

Wait, did I just come up with a reasonable explanation for the existence of superdelegates?