Hey if caucuses are so Democratic, let's use it in the GE

caucuses build parties, and are a great way to elect presidents.
Why not use them in the General Elections?

I would know if my vote was counted.

at least then we could make our case to those who repeately vote against their best interest.

Hard enough to have a caucus with a small number of people.

Caucuses seem good in theory, but they often devolve into chaos, or shouting matches. The loudest and most threatening wins!

If your state wants to have the legislature name the electors, it can. You do not have any right to VOTE in a general election for president. You have a right to vote for electors who CAUCUS and vote, just like delegates do.

Which helped her political career.
And helped to place her where she is now.
I'm just sayen...

The fact of the matter remains that the playing field and the rules remained the same for every candidate. They all knew what to expect going in, and had the opportunity to plan their campaign as they saw fit. Clinton planned poorly, and Obama is reaping the benefit.

You can't blame the system when the real blame lies with the Clinton campaign and the poor way they are managing these primaries.

rules after they have been shown to have a negative consequence for you.

Now, on the issue of Superdelegates, the rules give them discretion. They are not just voters or caucusers, they are leaders who can and should be held responsible, as members of Congress (which many of them are) are. And if one candidate has CLEARLY the most popular votes AND the most pledged delegates, it would behoove the SD's to line up behind that candidate.

On the other hand, the reason for HAVING superdelegates (aside from their origin as a boost to Mondale, and/or response to the Carter/Kennedy fight in 1980) is so that, for example, if the outcome of the primary season is INDECISIVE, they can at least resolve the issue before going to a brokered convention.

In this, I am in agreement with Brazile, and with at least the general concerns raised by Dean. If it gets to be mid-March, and there is NO WAY one candidate can catch up to the other, an "arrangement" (perhaps an appeal to superdelegates to line up behind the clear leader) might be necessary. I fully plan to vote for the Democratic ticket even if my candidate doesn't win, but anything that stinks of a Tilden/Hayes compromise (1877 for you who aren't history buffs) is another matter entirely.

We get agree McCain to agree that we should not campaign in certain states (where we are ahead in the polls) and we agree not to count the electoral votes from those states (obviously a constitutional impossiblity, but we're dreaming here, right?). Then the voters in those states cast their ballots anyway, we win handily, then we clamor to "count the votes" and protest "disenfranchisement".

It's a pretty good campaign strategy (ignoring the "ethics" factor for the time being). :)