Reply #207: As allowed in the DNC rules, and as the Wyoming Democratic Party ....

[krkaufman]

... chose as their method for selecting their delegates.

If the issue is the fact that our nominating process is broken, I wholly agree. A *lot* needs to be changed. But singling-out caucuses as undemocratic once Sen. Clinton's failed strategy became clear comes across as a less-than-objective critique. And denigrating caucus-derived delegates as any less worthy than primary-derived delegates is an attempt to alter the rules of the process after they have been agreed-upon and the contest begun, and is similarly transparent.

Putting all that aside, the first thing someone will eventually need to decide, should reform be attempted, is to what degree does the Democratic Party want its delegates selected on a strictly democratic basis, versus retention of some sort of mechanism(s) to retain party control. Superdelegates *and* caucuses warrant review, as does the absence of instant runoff voting in the primaries -- what I would prefer to see.

How about the Democratic Party taking the lead on the issue, and, in 2012, requiring instant runoff voting primaries across all the states, while, at the same time, lowering the delegate allocation threshold from its current 15% mark.

But that's the future. This cycle, we have the rules as agreed-upon before the process began. They cannot be changed mid-way through.