Agree with the 1st, disagree with the 2nd.
Superdelegates allow for the Party bosses to choose rather than public. These Superdelegates also put Democratic leaders in tough positions in close nomination elections. Superdelegates would be more acceptable if states were winner-takes-all, but given that delegates are mostly given out on a proportional basis combined with the large quantity of Superdelegates, it's tough for a candidate to dominate enough to overcome the Superdelegates.
On the question of replacing caucuses with open primaries, I prefer open primaries, but this really is something that should be determined by the state. Caucuses work well in Iowa where there is a history and culture of making a big event out of the elections, and this seems to keep the population invested. Caucuses also allow for the re-vote, which I'm not a big fan of picking second choices, but again I think that comes down to state preference. Lets not forget our history, which is that each state exists because it has it's own culture. But, if you asked me to pick one system for the entire country, I'd pick slate primaries.
LOL
What I find funny is that people think going from caucuses to primaries will solve problems. We've seen many states have issues. What we're seeing now is people who want to prevent Iowa from going first being politically opportunistic.
Poll
