Their argument that the superdelegates is undemocratic.

[wildeyed]

10. And the thing is, superDs have never overturned the will of the people.

They exist, IMO, for extreme situations like if Edwards had won and then his infidelities came out. I would be OK with them not declaring their support until their state voted, something like that. And the media should be showing pledged delegates numbers separate from the superD totals.

Sanders peeps seem to think that the early party support swayed the actual voters but I doubt most voters pay attention. I vote for who I like best and so do most others who are civic minded enough to show up regularly for those elections. We just didn't like Sanders and they seem to have a hard time reconciling themselves to that reality.

The two party system IS problematic, what with fewer and fewer people identifying with either. The Democratic Party (and GOP) is more a coalition than a party now. BOTH parties need to find ways to reconcile themselves with this reality or continue to pay the price. Sanders was a warning shot to the Dems. I don't know if the GOP will even survive Trump.

I REALLY think that fixing the gerrymander districts (and both parties are guilty of gerrymandering) would go a LONG way toward fixing the discontent we see in the general population. That is the main problem, IMO. The Dem Party and all of us should get behind making non-partisan boundaries committees a reality in all states. Parties lose a little power doing that, but they get to survive and it will tamp down discontent in the general population. Plus is is what our country needs right now for democracy to function again. Compromise is good.