Reply #9: When did you stop beating your wife? The question is a trap if paralleled to the primary... [View All]

The 2000 election is not in any way representative of the primary. The popular vote is a nonsensical metric in the primary given that some states have caucuses and some have primaries. The caucus states, which by the way they are designed, have a massively lower turnout compared to primary states, are disenfranchised in the popular vote count- so a state that has a caucus may net some thousands in the popular vote for the candidate who wins, while one with a primary news tens if not hundreds of thousands for the winner, even when the states are of comparable size.

What you need is a system that proportionately rewards candidates according to the size of the state they won, and according to the results of either the caucus or primary... hmmm... something like... pledged delegates?

Pledged delegates is the ONLY metric by which you can count support. The 2000 election cannot be compared with this primary, because there none of the states had caucuses.

Not only that, I do not buy the notion that caucuses are undemocratic. The primary is, in effect, an internal decision of the party, and the party can decide any way it wants, and will wish to make the most informed decision. Caucuses have many advantages- the people who caucus are more likely to vote, and more passionate about their vote so less likely to defect, and more likely to be more active and make more informed decisions. At the same time they ARE open to everybody who wishes to participate, so nobody is barred from entering.