...caucus and super-delegate ideas may have good intentions, but they make the Party look bad. More people will be looking to become Democratic voters - let's be appealing!

We need to keep super delegates.

Clean sweep. I would accept semi closed primaries. Caucuses and superdelegates are unfair and anti democratic.

Why must we tell them how to do it?

"I don't like your system,
so you must change it"

Should that decision be made by caucus or at the polling station by ballot?

It’s interesting that your sense of right and wrong here is based on wanting voters to have the right of determination about a process that, by its very nature disenfranchises a rather large number of voters.

On a totally personal, and rather selfish level, I do like Caucuses. They are fun, I love the energy of the crowd of mostly like minded people gathering just to talk politics! On that same level, I lament that I no longer live in a state that has them. That said, there is real validity to the notion that they do disenfranchise a lot of voters, which is one thing OUR party shouldn’t be in the business of. The rigid, and limited timeframe offered to voters to participate combined with the length of time that must be committed to support the primary candidates does restrict who may and may not be able to participate in the process.

We really should be looking at either going full ballot (one person one vote, open at least to all registered Democrats), or looking at some kind of hybrid system that will still allow those who are unable to make the limited timeframe, or commit the amount of required time to the Caucus process still have some voice in the candidate selection process. Maybe absentee Caucus voting similar to that used in Washington state?

Let’s not work to get more involved.

the people voting in those primaries loved having them exclude blacks. Caucuses are equally disqualifying for many voters. It is insane that we think the price of casting what for many is the only meaningful vote for a candidate should be siting for hours in a room on a weeknight. It wouldn't make me unable to vote but it should would make it more difficult. For many it would be outright disenfranchising. If you are serving abroad in the military, no vote for you. If you work weeknights and can't afford to have your paycheck slashed, no vote for you. If you have young children and can't afford a baby sitter, no vote for you. If you are home bound or in a nursing home, no vote for you. We can, and should, do better.

there's a reason why the caucus system is considered antiquated by every western democratic country on earth. the US may also be the only western country that uses superdelegates. is the US even a real democracy anymore? that may be arguable.

Individual state election law determines the system used. If you don't like your state system, lobby your state legislators.

That doesn’t negate your point but there are a number of things the national party can to to incentivize this at the state level. Some states have a somewhat fair argument as to why they do it. With assistance that argument becomes weaker and weaker.

I think the process works

They are so cool in some ways, but the negative outweighs the positive.

100% of voters understand how to use a paper ballot, but less than half understand how caucuses work.

Caucuses tend to attract the white and wealthy. They deny people the convenience of a mail-in ballot, forcing them to go to a specific location at a specific time, waiting in line for hours. For many other reasons, caucuses are highly disenfranchising and the process itself is highly prone to manipulation.

voices of those who need a voice the most.