Regarding Nevada
Even supposing for a moment that the Sanders camp is in the right regarding the state convention today, which I doubt, I still come back to a basic point. The entire purpose of the Democratic primary system, with proportional representation of delegates and weighting each state's delegate share by its relative Democratic vote total, is to provide a final delegate count that best represents the wishes of the party's electorate.
Now, it would seem to me that Nevada's broadest participation was at the initial caucus level. At this level, Secretary Clinton won by about 5 points. The two steps since that time really are not supposed to change that, but can if one candidate's supporters are better at playing the behind the scenes game.
It strikes me that attempting to rob the actual popular winner of the broadest participatory portion of caucus of their delegates in the less democratic and more arcane portions is not a proper use of those stages. This is the sort of thing that causes people to lose faith in the system.
I would forward the idea that the delegate totals should reflect the wishes of the Democratic voters in that state, as informed by the primary elections and the initial rounds of caucuses (which have the broadest participation). Everything else is just silly and contrary to the spirit of the process.
Beyond all of that, though, it further seems to me that the difference is one or two national convention delegates, which, frankly, is an irrelevant number this year anyway.
= new reply since forum marked as read
