people do not participate as much.

Nebraskan know that the primare REALLY does not count. People are not motivated to really care about it.

None of the top candidates campaigned in Florida or Michigan. The events were described in the media as "beauty contests, and voter turnout in both states was relatively low when compared with record-high turnout in other states.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/19 disenfranchising-non-voters-in-florida- and-michigan?mod=googlenews_wsj

Bill Clinton's home state is undemocratic.

and they have a democratic gov and legislature.

Oh go stuff it.  

You KEEP selling the same thing, but mostly it seems you are talking to yourself....

We in WA state KNEW that primary was a beauty contest?

It was on a Tuesday, THAT was the gig that was difficult for working folks to make, NOT THE Caucus?

The Caucus was held on Saturday and NO ONE had ever seen those kind of numbers....

You weren't there, you don't know, so for all your sturm und drang over FL or MI, you keep telling US in Washington state, YOU want to ignore or trash our legal run, legal won Caucus?

It was real, it counted and Obama blitzed Clinton.

Texas is a messed up system, but:

You are comparing caucuses and primaries that are weeks apart. Apples and oranges to begin with.

To see if one is really unfair, you need to have corresponding polling data to see if at the time the results are skewed, to see if the results vary greatly from the results.

Unless you have date corresponding data, you really can only make assumptions from 3 events that are divided by time and emphasis.

I would agree that we need some reforms in the primary process before 2016 (when Obama steps down after his 2nd term).

I disagree with several of your points though.

1.  We can't use the popular vote in this nomination process because the rules have already been set.  Both nominees would have run very different campaigns in order to win that style nomination.  Furthermore by changing the standards now, you are relegating caucus states to complete irrelevance.  Caucus states would have run primaries to increase their state popular vote and therefore their relevance to the nomination.

2.  Running a single-day national primary is actually a horrible idea.  It favors only well funded politicians with good name recognition.  Candidates with good ideas but no national standing (see Bill Clinton) would not have a chance.   The best plan I have seen suggests two early states (Iowa and NH) followed by regional primaries every several weeks.  Regional primaries would allow candidates to spend time in multiple states before the primary in their region.  Region and "early states" could be rotated every primary season.

I have more to say in general but this is enough to start conversation.

her current argument is who can win working class voters in ohio and penn, not who has wins the popular vote.

Delegate Apportionment by District means alot of votes do not count.

Anytime you have delegates it is undemocratic.

And "should" and current rules are two diffrent things.

The popular vote matters the day that all contests are conducted by popular vote.  And even direct popular vote has problems when multiple people are in the race, you can have the person the fewest people prefer be declared the winner.

You never have a valid arguement when  you are asking to change the rules after a contest is over.  It is made even more invalid when your proposed change intentionally skews the results in one persons favor.

Everytime this arguement is made it shows the lack of honor and integrity of the person making it.

The turnouts in Michigan and Florida, while large, were not at the same rate as other states during this specific primary cycle.  One study attributes this to the fact that voters were told that their votes would not count.

There's nothing undemocratic about caucuses.

We don't have a direct democracy, we have a representative democracy. Thus, we vote for delegates who end up actually picking our president or presidential candidates. Sometimes, this actually comes in multiple stages, where we pick delegates to pick delegates to pick delegates, etc.

In a primary, polls are open for a certain amount of time while people come in to select a candidate. Then delegates are assigned based on proportions of those votes. That's one way to do it.

Another is a caucus, where, yet again, any registered member of the party and sometimes independents or Republicans can come to select their delegates. Here, they also cast votes, yet they also engage in discussion and persuasion and fight for their candidate. Then they select a candidate.

Each state does what system is best for them. I personally think caucuses are great, when appropriate, and it can be argued that they are even more democratic. Democracy should be lived. People should be involved in the process. This should be about people not doing the easiest thing but working to select their leaders. Now, I understand that it can be more difficult for some people to get to caucuses. Which is why reform is necessary. Employers should be required to give time off for the caucuses. Additionally, absentee balloting should always be a part of the caucus system.

But honestly, there is no way this would be an argument if Hillary had not been doing so poorly in caucuses. Her organization was poor and she made a mistake, so now her supporters are crying foul on the process. Its the same with FL and MI. This has nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with Clinton winning.

I'm all for overhauling the existing voting system for future elections - caucuses are not the best way to go by any means.

That said, I don't see how it is a viable argument. The Clintons had two Presidential primaries under their belt...they knew what was ahead and how things worked. No excuses.

Look if you hate the process so much work to change it between elections. This is the system we're stuck with for this go around. Do you really think that either Obama, or for that matter Hillary, would have used the exact same election strategy if the rules were different? Of course not. I agree with you on some of your points, but the rules are what they were set to at the beginning of the game. You don't get to change them after your candidate lost.