Should these totally undeserving party insiders crown Mrs. Clinton it will be John McCain as the next president of the United States. We want to end the Clinton-Bush era.

The establishment "Superdelegates" are necessary to ensure that, in a "free and open election", the people elect the correct person.

Otherwise it will be up to Diebold alone to select the next President.

Let`s not any of us vote for those rotten Democrats!! That way we will either continue the wonderful state of affairs that the capitalists have given us the last eight years, or we will have a good dose of socialism by voting Green. No matter which way we go, everything will be beautiful if we are just rid of the Democrats, as they are the source of all evil. It will be worth it just to stop some of these Dem hater posters.

Everyone makes valid points while pointing out the obvious; that the corportae parties (The War Party and the Democrats) are only serving up more of the same. Yet no one seems to have any solutions about how we can enlighten a public that is hooked on FOX News, has a general apathy towards politics and still believes that the war in Iraq has something to do with 9-11 or democracy or weapons of mass destruction. Surely there must be a way to use the internet (or something else?) to bring people up to date. Any ideas out there?

The reason for all the campaigns is to get you to buy into "thier" decision. Americans are led around like a bull with a nose ring.

I live in NY and have been a lifelong Democrat. Recently I have become so angry at my own party, They have become a 'roll over and play dead' partner to Bush and Co. I have considered registering as an independent, giving up my Democratic registration. I would always vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election anyway, assuming that he/she was the more liberal.

But, the one thing I always treasured was my participation in the primary process (NY is a closed primary state, only those registerd in the specific pary can participate). I would never have given that right up.

But now, I see that it really doesn't matter. If Clinton gets the nomination, while Obama wins the popular vote, I am giving up my registration in this Democratic party. As stated above, this current process is as absurd and crooked as the whole electoral colege mess.

Just want to say I am so impressed with all the ideas posted here. I am still reading thru them.

There is an online petition asking the DNC to choose the candidate with the most votes and delegates rather than take the chance on a secret backroom deal.

Please sign the petition and pass it on to your friends.

http://www.petitiononline.com/Superdel/petition.html

If it's not Obama, I'm voting Green.

hanif, granted that the US is out of control and that both political parties are for all practical purposes twin choices of a single power structure--practically alike in foreign policy, differing emphases domestically (the Democrats for more social programs and pro-choice, Republicans for gutting social programs and anti-choice).

What's to be done? General strike, mass action and popular boycotts are how tyranny is brought down sometimes in other countries, but there are no signs of this happening in America (oddly)--not yet anyway. On the narrow issue of voting and the presidential election, I for one do not see Obama as a fraud. I see about a 10% chance of a Gorbachev phenomenon here, of a candidate who was never expected to win (it is clear the Republican game plan was for Clinton to be the nominee and for Clinton to lose) ... somehow catching traction across america. Obama may or may not be effective in power--I think he would be somewhat effective, but of course that remains to be seen--but (I say) he is no fascist, his heart is not dark and malignant, he is a good angel, he will attempt to take the reigns of this empire and humanize this beast. With Obama there is vision. With Clinton--if she were elected--there would be sleaze, defense lobbyists slush and bonanza, more-of-the-same with full Clintonian complicity (read "Hillary Inc.", The Nation 5/07, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman and feel as I did like throwing up).

I therefore voted for Obama here in Washington state and hope to God the Democrats, at this historic threshold, put up the dynamic, earnest Obama who, if nominated, is headed to win big, and I will vote for him in the general.

Not everyone feels this way. There is a critique that voting provides sanction or mandate from the people toward their oppressors. I understand this critique (and have shared it in the past, and if Clinton is nominated, will be sorely tempted to share it again this time). Within this critique there is a further subset of choice to either not vote at all (boycott the election) or to vote a third party candidate, who cannot win but which expresses a principled position. This option, e.g. voting Green, or Nader, etc. basically makes public and shows intention not to vote for the two major party candidates, whereas non-voting is more passive and may or may not be misinterpreted as apathy rather than conviction. Everyone looks at the cards dealt, makes their choice, and acts on it.

But even if I were not voting for Obama, I would still in my heart hope to see him win. The Obama phenomenon is rare, and an opportunity like this may not come this way again given the severe constraints in our electoral system, and possible intent on the part of dark-hearted powers in and around the present White House to take this country further into unlimited presidential power and tyranny via the mechanism of continued Republican victories ...

Jimmy Carter all but endorsed Obama a couple days ago. Ted Kennedy--and say what you will, we all know Ted Kennedy is for real--has endorsed Obama. Nader--the voice of truth (whether or not one likes his electoral runs)--while critical of both Obama and Clinton is FAR more critical of Clinton, and justifiably so. There are plenty of cons running around. I (sadly) think Hillary is a con. But I don't think Obama is. I think Obama is for real. On foreign policy the Republican agenda is wars of choice. Clinton I perceive would actively or passively go along with further wars of choice, principally with Iran, if she were elected (which is itself highly doubtful). Obama I perceive would exercise the vision and will not to get into wars of choice but would actively seek to negotiate settlements and calm things down. They all of course say they prefer negotiation first, but in the cases of Bush and Clinton I perceive this as to various degrees disingenuous; but with Obama I don't perceive this as disingenuous--and that would make a big difference in the world. How I see it. We will see what happens.

Of course, the cadidates knew it going in, and so did party operatives and activists, but what of the (majority of) voters? It feels like they didn't.

Will they insist that they are still a part of the Party? Will the anger develop into a change of policy? Will the idea of superdelegates suppress inclinations to vote? Will this debate get serious traction? Will it affect the larger electoral mess? Who will lead on creating a National Election System?

Also remember, Media, that the GOP has superdelegates too.

Let a terrorist attack here or overseas happen around late October and the Republicans will win.

I'm sure this system will work for the good of We The People if we pull all the correct levers like good doggies. The authorities know what they're doing, and they have our best interests at heart.

If the so-called super-delegates anoint a candidate who does not have a lead in elected delegates, the Democrats will have no room to complain if the Electoral College math again subverts the popular vote. And ennui will deflate the current blast of hope among Democrats.

If the superdelegates pick Hillary over a clearly popular Obama, I pledge that I will never vote for another Democrat for any office. I doubt I'd vote Republican, but there are other options, including just refusing to participate in this farce.

I have just seen a BBC spokesman trying to explain the "superdelegate" thing, and it would seem as though you have a bit of "positive discrimination" going on over there, only in a warped kind of way. I don't like to tell people how they should be running things, but wouldn't it be better to limit these battles, to the membership of the parties. We have positive discrimination at work over here in the UK, where the politicians obviously think that the electorate are not fit to choose, so we hold a ballot, with for example eight men and two women. Four people will go forward to the final selection, but in some cases it has been stipulated that two out of the four must be women. I am all for equality, but surely this must mean all candidates having an equal chance at victory.
If HRC gets in because of the superdelegate system, then everything which has gone before will be a meaningless charade, and a total waste of money.

Think of the irony. Gore got more votes, but "lost." The Democratic Party retains a system that allows Obama to get more votes than Hillary, yet "lose." Democracy in the real world, Chomsky once said, is "elite decision, public ratification." I guess sometimes it's even worse: public input, elite veto and decision by fiat. (Note: I don't think Obama's a progressive, and I won't vote for him, or Hillary, but still . . .)

AirAmerica hosts have been urging citizens to call or email Howard Dean and demand that the superdelegates be apportioned by popular vote, by state, etc. I encourage everyone here to do the same, Democrat and Republican (if there are any here).

I already hear the naysayers, and to them let me preemptively reply: the DNC isn't stupid. Shady, maybe, but not stupid. They know as well as we do that voter despair damages their cause far more than the GOP. They won't want to risk the new, fragile upswing in youth and minority vote these primaries have seen. If the shout is loud enough, the change will be made - even if it is out of a desire power rather than a love of democracy.

The Democrats can apparently force Hillary onto the ticket, but they still have to get more votes than McCain. If my choice is McCain or Hillary I will vote for whoever is the Green Candidate. (McKenna, perhaps?)

We giggle with derision at the schism in the GOP now, especially in light of their lockstep juggernaut to catastrophe for the last seven years. It's comic relief.

But if Obama takes the popular vote and Hillary succeeds in subverting the process either by seating the Michigan and Florida delegation; or by maneuvering a victory through the "super-delegate" count... it will be "He who laughs last laughs best."

From the nomination of Humphrey to the Kerry campaign, the DNC has trotted out it's PRO-WAR nominees in defiance of people's will ad nauseum.

Do you believe Clinton's pose as the Peace Candidate that's going to bring jobs and prosperity to US, after her voting complicity in the Neocon agenda and her husband's unyielding devotion to NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO?

Well, nobody else does either. This will be the death nell of the Democratic Party...

"The right hand doesn't know what the FAR right hand is doing." H.Clinton

The pot is calling the kettle "black."

If Obama wins the most delegates selected in legitimate primaries and caucuses (meaning, not Michigan/Florida) but then Clinton is nominated, I will never vote Democrat again.

considering Billary's desperation, unethical tactics, race-baiting, deception and transparent attempts to grab the uncontested Fla and micigan count, who would be surprised and unless the general is stolen as well, Clinton will surely lose due to resent and eroded unity.
Should she be the elite's choice Billary promises to be more reviled than Bush....and they thought the impeachment was an ordeal. Billary behaves like it never happened and that is why they are such a liability--the party needs to be liberated from the Clintons and the DLC horse they rode in on.

If super delegates decide this nomination, the Democratic base will go ballistic. Whether they do any thing about it is another matter all together. All the leaders have to do is point at the Republicans and the membership is cowed into submission. The Democrats - The party that's not the Republicans.

The green party has no super delegates. I'm glad the wise and benevolent leaders of the democratic party think they know better than their own base.

www.GP.org

"Jimmy Carter, for example, was an obscure candidate who developed so much popular appeal that he essentially forced Democratic Party leaders to accept him as the nominee, even though not everyone was thrilled by it."

If you carefully examine the "Problems" of the Carter presidential years, you soon begin to see a pattern. Most of Carter's "Problems" were created by various Democrats getting "Payback" for Carter's victory. They sabotaged him at every opportunity.

The Republicans can't be blamed for kicking him when he was down. That's what Republicans DO!

He should have been able to expect better of his own party, though.

On occasion after occasion, Carter was embarrassed in front of the nation when he discovered that decisions he made while relying on advice from various Democratic "Leaders" backfired. Then it was later revealed that these "Leaders" of his own party had Lied to him.

The Democrtic "Leadership" Lied over and over and their petty revenge handed the White House over to the Reagan/Bush NeoCon disaster.

Thanks a LOT guys!

Obama currently is ahead of Clinton in delegates the voters appointed. If the primary season ends with him still ahead with voters' delegates and super delegates end up swinging the nomination to Clinton, all those people who came in for Obama will not stay for Clinton and McCain will win.

My oldest son pointed out another factor. Clinton could conceivably win anyway but "purple" state down ticket candidates would not benefit from her short coattails and the Democrats could lose control of Congress. Certainly her candidacy would bring out the dispirited right wing in force. He said she doesn't care what happens to the party as long as she gets the nomination.

kathyodat

I have a friend who is admittedly sexist, and said he would never vote for Hillary. We all know racists who won't vote for Barack. Are there more sexists or more racists in this country?
I never thought the parent organization of this farce (DNC) would be either sexist or racist, but I guess I was wrong! They will have whatever candidate they want.

Much ado about "nothing". I doubt that the creation of the so-called "super delegate" was intended to exercise some sort of internal control over the process as has been suggested here. More likely the explanation that the "brokered" convention was anathema is much more responsible.

While the total of these delegates is around 1/4 of the total necesary to win the nomination, which is a pretty damn sizable number, the real issues are still twofold; either Obama or Clinton will still be a poor choice for any progressive committed to the changes necesary to move our nation to its intended place as honorable, democratic and peaceful, and, secondly, who in heck believes the national election following the selection of the candidates will be administered fairly or counted correctly?

They do the same thing in China...with the Communist Party Central Committee being the "super delegates"

Its all in place to ensure the status quo remains unchanged

Excelent discussion of "delegates" here, http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02112008.html

"... since the mid-1970s the Democratic National Committee has spent countless hours plowing firebreaks between expressions of the popular will in such caucus and primary votes and the ultimate selection of the nominee."

I choose not to waste any more time on the Democratic Party and it's pretensions. They are weak and servile and would never take on the Fascist-like American elites who run things. The Clintons are complicit: http://tinyurl.com/mrg4m

I'm living and voting Green.

Barack Obama is no 46-year-old virgin. He figured out his strategy a long time ago, and he's gaming the system, too. His strategy is to win *caucuses*--no matter where--and rack up delegate counts that way. And so far, it's working. (It's working particularly well this month, though there's a danger of making Hillary Clinton, of all people, look like the underdog.) But consider this: Clinton won New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California. She is said to be the favored candidate to win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. And all these states held/will hold *primary elections* rather than caucuses. In a primary election, people can vote all day, not just for a couple of hours at a specific location, and everyone's vote is private, whereas a caucus can be won on the strength of turning out a comparatively minuscule sample of one candidate's partisans. And consider this: Obama's wins, largely in caucuses, have been in so-called red states that are unlikely to end up in the Democratic column in November. So what are the superdelegates going to do: back the candidate who lost primary elections in all the big states that are must-wins for the Democratic presidential nominee? or the candidate who won all those primaries, and whose wins in other primary elections might even turn a couple more states blue? The Democrats' proportional system of awarding delegates--which is the only thing that has kept Obama in the game this long--is fairer than the Republicans' winner-take-all system. Come November, though, it's a winner-take-all game for both parties. The superdelegates are there to ensure that the stronger candidate is the one who represents the party in the general election.

Putting the "Mock" back in Democracy.

What with Superdelegtes and allowing other candidates from their party, like Kucinich to be removed from debates without even a sigh of protest or even indignation, there is ver little democratic to see in the Democratic Party. Period.

They know about "firewalls" and taking it to the wall when it comes to power plays for power, don't they?

Where is that moxie when it comes to standing up to the Bush Administration. Where are those ready to lead a filibuster to save our Supreme Court or to stop a war.

THEY say they "know the rules." They also know the rules of the House and Senate. But DO NOT USE THEM, for anything other than cover for their cowardice and inability to leave the"party (read: corporate) line."

This is about raw power and NOT about democracy.

It is time, way past time, for Americans to wake up to the fact that NEITHER corporate party is even attempting to "save our democracy", save our Constitution, or save our dignity as a nation or as human beings.

If good-hearted people do not wake up soon from this programmed Hillary-Barrack-somnambulism and actually be come concerned enough to ORGANIZE (that involves leaving our comfort zones and adding the essential ingredient ACTION to Hope) and DEMAND REAL "Change" (far more than comes from Obama's pretty, but vacuous rhetoric), we will be well on our way to becoming the "Good Americans" who "didn't know" what was being done in their names.

Far from being "great choices," as mainstream "conventional" wisdom would have us believe, we have been allowed to chose from nicely crafted packaging of people who have not DONE enough nor pointed out clearly enough what is going on wrong here, and what to do about it to be even considered for our leaders.

Just as our Congress and both parties have become complicit in this ghastly prolonged military adventure to control world resources, the American people will become complicit if they only blindly "follow the rules" and swallow this FALSE Choice fait acomplii thrown in our faces.

WE know over half the country wants the Occupation to end yesterday. and over half want at least Cheney impeached.

They have whacked us with their screwed-up twisted "rules" and media-financial backing to give us "candidates", NONE of whom represent what the majority of Americans want. We have already been DISENFRANCHISED loooong before the election.

Are we to sit back and swallow that?

NONE of the "mainstream" candidates are worthy of the vote or support of the American people until and unless they talk CLEARLY about:

torture
tax-paid mercenary armies
the lying that got us into an illegal war/occupation
the destruction of our rights and packing of our courts
impeachment hearings for High Crimes
closing bases in Iraq
stopping war funding quickly
crony non-bid contracts and war profiteering
the criminal dismantling of New Orleans for profit
true SINGLE-PAYER health coverage for ALL
eliminating the mechanisms for stolen elections

Anything less is a sham.

This logic that superdelegates represent every area of the country and are bulwarks of the party, and therefore don't have to conform to the will of the voters is ridiculous. I even read some bs that since Howard Dean is chairman of the DNC while being unpopular with many in the party, that shows superdelegates will pick the right (meaning left) candidate. Completely specious arguments aside, educated people realize that the electoral college makes us a republic, not a democracy. The existence of superdelegates blurs the line even further. Finally, any argument saying that the idea of backroom deals being brokered is inaccurate is false on its face. That is the essence of politics, and to suggest any different is a flat-out lie that should not be uttered to the public. We don't need to accept that our officials lie with impunity. There are other ways forward.

I was pulling for Edwards, I voted for Obama in the California primary, and I will vote for Clinton if she is the party's nominee - no matter how she gets there.

Half a loaf IS better than none. I do not want John McCain to appoint the next three Supreme Court Justices.

Knowing who and what Clinton is... I will continue to oppose the war, support progressive organizations, refute the lies of right-wing media, and work to elect a more enlightened Congress.

I will do the same if Obama wins too. The game doesn't end when a Democrat the oath of office.

Does anybody think that if their positions were reversed Obama wouldn't be playing the super-delegate card for all it's worth?

The late Walter Karp wrote an excellent book "I
ndispensible Enemies" The references are a bit dated but the premise is sound. Hacks of both parties have more in common with each other than they do with reformers in their own party.

Witness the Dems: McGovern torpedoed before the election and Carter torpedoed after the election.

The Superdelegate business is an institutionalized tactic to make sure that democracy does not overtake the Democratic Party.

Hillary would have been a teriible candidate under the best of conditions. If she secures the nomination through "corrupt bargains" with the supers and getting Florida and Michigan delegates seated it will be even more proof (as if any were needed) that the Clintons care for nothing but themselves.

This actually though, could be good news for those who wish to see the Dems go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs and under the circumstances that might be a good thing.

I know many here would like to see the unconditional surrender of Capitalism in 2008. Perhaps we should set our sights a little lower by working to destroy the Clinton candidacy and get Cindy Sheehan elected to Congress! Those would be really good things.

When it's becoming more apparent each day that Barack can beat McCain in a general election and Hillary possibly cannot, it's hard to imagine the superdelegates going too silly at the convention.
But, the more this "rules" problem is talked about in advance, the better.

People like "jjohnjj" who say:

I was pulling for Edwards, I voted for Obama in the California primary, and I will vote for Clinton if she is the party's nominee - no matter how she gets there.

Half a loaf IS better than none. I do not want John McCain to appoint the next three Supreme Court Justices.

seem to forget that Democrats did NOTHING serious to stop Roberts and Alito. Just as they did NOTHING to stop the Negroponte and Bolton appointments (characters out of a tortured era of our history) -- and today we wonder why we have torture.

Complicit. C'mon, say the word: COMPLICIT.

The Democratic Party uses the FEAR of the Supreme Court all the time to gain votes and POWER, yet DO NOTHING to keep the Supreme Court filled with honest and fair judges. It is history for all to see.

Stop demanding so little of your government or it will get consistently worse. AND IT HAS!!

THAT is the dark side of the "lesser of two evils" thinking. It has brought us to torture and Constitution-shredding -- and accepting, even supporting, candidates who don't mention these nasty things.

There IS no Resistance or Self-defense element inside the Democratic Party. It simply CANNOT -- CANNOT -- save us from the evils we see around us, the ones THEY allow, IN SPITE OF the November 2006 vote.

Those self-labeled progressive Democrats who wish and work to resist are kept far away from power and money.

Look how they USED Kucinich in their bait-and-switch game, then looked the other way when media groups kept him -- and his ideas which represent far more people than Clinton-Obama's do -- from the debates.

I say again: WAKE UP! They, too, deceive us, and, like Bush, use FEAR to motivate our electoral behavior...then give us nothing to show for the favor of supporting them: they keep CONTROL and POWER firmly in the grip of International Corporate Rule, and leave us OUT of EVERY important decision: healthcare, war, taxes, bankruptcy, safe foods and medicine, media ownership, education, trade.

What do you get supporting this "good cop-bad cop" game, hmmm? More "cops" in charge!!

Register Green. Register and vote for values you believe in--and, who knows, you may get them in time. The way it is, you'll NEVER get them.

Support the growth of the Green Party, no matter HOW you vote at the top. We are going to need value-leadership of that quality and vision in the rought times ahead. Don't waste another minute or another election. Grow the non-coprporate leadership movement in America.

On the other hand, Obama owes his success thus far to the caucus system, which suppresses turnout compared to primaries. I have a feeling Clinton would have pulled well ahead of Obama on Super Tuesday if all elections had been primaries.

As of Feb 11 11AM PST:

(C)linton (O)bama
(S)uperdelegate (P)rimary (T)otal

CS CP CT OS OP OT source
247 889 1136 166 942 1108 Yahoo/WashingonPost
211 920 1131 137 997 1134 CBS News**
243 893 1136 156 952 1108 AP / Fox News
----- 895 ----- ----- 943 ----- MS-NBC
----- ----- 1128 ----- ----- 1116 ABC News
224 924 1148 135 986 1121 CNN News
204 939 1143 99 786 885 NY Times*
223 895 1118 129 968 1097 demconwatch

* NY Times excludes caucus state results, which hurts Obama's count more… doesn't list caucus count separately
NY Times claims caucus delegates, like superdelegates, are unpledged & could change their mind at convention
NY Times endorsed Hillary Clinton for president on January 25, 2008
** CBS News only organization to predict Obama leading in total delegates

All news organizations except NY Times show that Obama has a lead on elected delegates. This is despite trailing in the national polls, less so recently.

~BeForKids~ 1:09pm. __ You are absolutly correct. However Hillary may end up with more delegates after the Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania votes. __ She may not, right now Obama has the momentem and he may take those states also. If so, the super delgates had better vote for Obama.

Then there is one more very important issue. Will Dean and the the Democrat party leaders allow the Michigan and Florida votes to be counted at the convention? I believe they will and it won't be a court issue to decide that. The Supreme Court has previously ruled, that political parties may have their own rules and it is a moot issure for the courts. ___ Very interesting.

shirtsleeves, so who is the stronger candidate? Results of latest polls:

Obama, an Illinois senator, led McCain in the poll by 48 percent to 42 percent when people were asked which one they would prefer if the presidential race were held now. Clinton, a senator from New York, got 46 percent to McCain's 45 percent in their matchup.
The poll shows Obama leading Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination, 46 percent to 41 percent.

Another point is that while many independents will vote for Obama, they won't vote for Clinton. Since the Republicans will be up to their usual election stealing tricks, we need the widest spread possible if we don't want a Republican in office in January.

Greg Palast thinks it's moot, there's no way to stop the Republican election theft. I hope he's wrong, but he may be right. Unfortunately he's been right far too often for comfort.

kathyodat

If Obama wins the popular vote delegates and the superdelegates overturn that and nominate Hillary I won't vote for her.

I also fully agree with JJ JOHN JJ.

@BeForKids: Remember who was the GOP front runner all last year, according to all these polls? Rudy Giuliani. The only poll that counts is the one on election day. Obama 08 = McGovern 72. Kumbaya.

McCain won't win if Boris Karloff is the nominee. He's dead too, but he'd beat any Republican this time around.

Now it Huckster is the VP choice we may have a small problem. The born again idiots will slither out and vote.

All of this guessing aside, some of which sounds pretty accurate, we are going to have a depression before the next election. If not, I will eat all of my stored beans and rice and sell toilet paper, peanut butter and kleenex at the swap meet.

If the depression hits. Bush will inact the Presidential Directives, declare martial law and there won't be an election. We'll have a King George and that's where we started in 1776.

I've sent the following letter to our state senators:

Dear Senator ___________,

I am writing with respect to your recent decision to endorse Senator Hillary Clinton as the democratic nominee for U.S. president. While I have always had the utmost respect for your office, I am saddened that your pre-announced decision to support Senator Clinton goes against the clear, resounding voice of voters in Washington.

On February 9, 2008, Washington voters made clear that they wanted change in this country. Their voice was heard loudly when over 67% of Washington caucus voters decided to support Senator Barack Obama. As our elected official, we look to you for leadership and integrity as you represent the will of the people.

**The will of the people in this state is that you support Barack Obama.**

Over the course of this election, your stance as a leader will become critically clear. As you exercise your function as a super delegate, please consider the clear, resounding voice of over 67% of Washington democratic voters. Democracy cannot survive when our elected officials do not represent the true will of the people. I trust that you will make the right decision.

Respectfully yours,

If the super delegates decide the outcome of this election, over the popular vote, I swear I will never vote for another Democrat - period. And I will not vote for Hillary. I don't and won't vote Repuklican either. Our elections are democratic and fair, and reflect the will of the voting public??? NOT!

You didn't mention the imfair caucus type of voting in your letter ~Aturepatriot~.