I have said before, with examples, that Democrats do not really believe in either free speechor democracy (which is why they succeeded in legalizing abortion by judicial fiat rather than through the democratic process and why they want to outlaw the death penalty by similar judicial fiat). Look at the way the Democrats have handled this Presidential nomination process on the Democratic side:
1. As stated previously, I voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary. But look at how Democrats set up the primary to DISENFRANCHISE people. First, you voted in the primary. But your vote did not count as much as someone willing to go through the hassle of going to a caucus AT NIGHT (after the polls closed). I can tell you, from experience, that there were NO instructions given on the caucus at the polling place. It was not even mentioned. Yet, 1/3 of the Texas delegates, on the Democratic side, are chosen by caucus. Only 2/3's are chosen by the primary vote. At the same time, you HAD to vote in the Democratic Party primary to attend the Democratic Party caucus. I have promised to vote for Hillary Clinton, and did. However, I am not dedicated enough to go through all of this caucus junk just for Hillary Clinton. What is the purpose of choosing delegates separately in a caucus, when MORE people--including the SAME people attending the caucus--already registed their preference in the primary vote? This is NOT "democracy. It is some sort of game/obstacle course whose only purpose is to disenfranchise people (primary voters whose vote does not count as much). Then there is the apportionment of delegates by district. It is NOT based on population, or even--apparently--the number of Democratic voters in the district primary. Whatever it is based on, the effect in this electioin was to DISENFRANCHISE (again) voters--especially Latino voters--whose vote does not count as much as voters in districts with an underallocation of delegates. It turns out that African-American and white liberal districts tended to have a higher allocation of delegates than Latino areas. Now his was hardly arranged just to benefit Barack Obama (the system has been in place for more than just this election). However, it means that many voters in Texas had their vote count, when you take into account both the later caucus and the allocation of delegates, considerably less than other voters.
2. You might consider voters in Texas lucky. Demrats are trying to disenfranchise people in Michigan and Florida altogether. This is punishment for those states moving up their primaries to before February 5, in violation of party rules. But look what the Repubicnas did. They imposed a sanction of taking away half of the delegates, but the voters still got to cast a meaningful vote. In fact, the voters of Florida probably decided the Republican nomination for President. In contrast, the Democrats--who, remember, have more of a belief in poer than a belief in democracy--took away ALL dlelegates from Michingan and Florida. This effectively took away the right to vote of ALL people in Michingan and Florida because of what their state had done in moving up the primary (which, of course, an individual voter may have had nothing to do with). If you believe in democracy, how can you do that? The Democrats did, and they have gotten what they deserve. All of the Democrat candidates agreed to respect the party decision to deny the vote to residents of Florida and Michigan. (What does THAT say aboutt he Democrat candidates for President?) Everyone but Hillary Clinton took his name off of the Michigan ballot, and they agreed not to campaign in Florida. Now Hillary Clinton is claiming her "victories" in Michigan and Florida as wins for her, and is evidenctly planning to support the seating of those delegates. If they are NOT seated, it means that the voters of Michigan and Florida have been totally disenfranchised by the Democratic Party. If they ARE seated, it meanst that Hillary Clinton has gone back on her word to respect the Democratic Party decision to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan. Although it is mentioned from time to time, you don't hear the mainstream media--other than occasionally on Fox--talking much about the DISENFRANCISEMENT of voters by the Democrats.
3. Then there are the "superdelegates"--put in to give the Democrat "establishment" a substantial say in the convention and nomination. Those delegates are not, of course, elected at all, and are not required to follow the primary/caucus results for their state. Tjhere is something to be said for the concept of "superdelegates" who are elected or party officials, but it definitely dilutes the vote of each primary/caucus voter.
Then there are the minor items such as the fact that Democratic precincts in Ohio can't seem to get through an election without a court order, or some kind of order, to keep SOME polls open longer than the official close (presumably honored at other polling places). Barack Obama pulled the ploy this time, and you can expect it again in Novement, as Democrats have made virtually a cottage industry of claiming voting "ireegularities.
The Democrats have turned their nomination process into an unholy mess. This is further complicated by the "proportionate repesentation" rules (per district though, and not per popular vote), which make it difficult to pile up big delegate gains over your opponen from individual states. This actually increases the disenfranchisement of voters, in combination with the other anomalies mentioned above. The superdelegates, and extra delegates provided by the rules--not to mention the missing delegates from Florida and Michigan--become that much more important. That is because no candidate, in a two person race, is going to build up a very big lead. Yet, Barack Obama is going to claim that he is ENTITLED to the nomination if he estatlishes a "lead" in "elected" delegates. That argument would be more convincing if the Democrats had practiced "one man, one vote", and not totally disenfranchised Florida and Michigan.
WHY should you elect these people to run this country--people obsessed with power and politcal correctness more than the reality of what they are doing?