The "Democratic" Party is an oxymoron.
The term "democratic" means the majority rules or wins. But in the Democratic Party it seems the majority of voters does NOT count. This is evident in the New Hampshire primary.

Bernie Sanders won the NH primary by a landslide yet Hilliary left with more delegates.
For those unfamiliar with the election process, it doesn't matter how many states you win, its how many delegates you accumulate that gets you the nomination.
So how did Hilliary win? Super-delegates.

Super-delegates are the big elite party bosses that squash the peoples voice.
Most Democrats voted for Bernie, yet Hilliary won the most important thing,delegates.
Seems a bit undemocratic if you ask me.

In February of 2016, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper, "What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?" Schultz's response was, "Superdelegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists."

This clarification was hailed by Clinton supporters as a wise policy to maintain steady, experienced governance, and derided by Sanders supporters as the establishment thwarting the will of the people.

This hypocrisy is interesting in that these same party elites spread propaganda about the republican party, who they say is trying to suppress voter rights and deprive them of a voice.
When it is really the Democratic Party bosses that silence the voices of their own to elect who the PEOPLE want.

So Democrats, instead of worrying about those evil Republicans, maybe you should take a good, hard look at your own party and see how they silence your voice!

Quite right. Unfortunately, both parties are prone to this sort of manipulative crap. Put someone in power for a while, and they tend to try to rig things to help themselves stay there, often at the expense of their own stated principles.

The Republican "superdelegates" are different, in state primaries they are obligated to cast their votes on the majority candidate, thereby reinforcing the will of the people.

I honestly as so sickened by the whole Joke of our Gov. on both sides I have no clue who is going to win.

I used to be proud to be a republican then got sickened by their lies and crap that I am now considered an independent up here in Ak. And have no clue whom I am going to vote for I know it won't be a Clinton didn't do it the first time and won't do it now.

And Yes Sanders should have taken New Hampshire he won it.

The only problem with being an "independent" is you have no voice in who the nominees are(like the Democrats). Yes, you can vote for the President but by then your only given the two choices picked by others.

Yes and NO...
Besides that living up here in Alaska it is decided before our Polls even close.

And as an independent I know last election for our little state I got more options than my roommate that is Democrat?

The systems established by each party are complicated. Many rules are state by state, and some are national. Identifying one place where firm adherence to good principles has occurred, is not proof of that party's overall morality, any more than discovery of failures in another locality is proof of national inequity.

Than you guys for enlightening this poor Canadian.....regarding the process of selecting a candidate, for the Party's nomination ...delegates and super delegates and the choices... I like to follow the US political scene, as it is pretty dramatic...and where all, and I mean all, the dirty laundry is aired....now that is democracy at work. This year it seems more interesting, as I hear a fellow Canadian is running for the highest office in the land....hope he can pull it of....then I wont need a passport, to cross the border and go pub-crawling in Buffalo and buy all that cheap gas, and to get my Goober(peanut butter/jam) from the Target store...lol...just saying...

No offense, but anything can happen. I mean our government system doesn't support Americans anymore. A guy who's American citizenship was questionable became president twice. So now we've got a presidential election that makes me feel embarrassed that this is the best we can do? Man I can't belive I'm saying this, but if he were running, I'd vote for Mitt Romney.

No offense taken....if I was allowed to vote, I would have gone with Gov. Bobby Jindal...just saying...

Yea now your getting it. Bobby Jindal was born in America in Louisiana. In Canada do they let Americans run for Prime Minister? Just curious..

can you bottle up the logic you have been blessed with and pass it around to others?...lol

not that everyone will agree, but it would be nice to at least recognize some logic behind those dissenting voices,,,

Yes, some may be complicated but others are outright unfair and are specifically made to squash the voters voice just as the head of the DNC admitted to CNN. You can't stated much clearer then that

Nope, but for the US since it has been done before, I guess it can happen again... Precedence being set and all... Just saying ..

I will flip you for it!
Now,THAT's Democratic!

I understand how you feel. I was involved in the Republican party rather
heavily for the last 5 1/2 years. I believe Ron Paul is going to be
correct when he said "When s*it hits the fan, don't count on the
government to be there to help you!"

Politicians from both parties are forced to follow the "party line" rather than the will of "the people" or face retaliation and humiliations from it's "leaders", including the president.

Look at what happened to New York's federal anti-terrorism funds and the derogatory comments made about Chuck Schumer by the White House via Josh Ernest. There is no justification that Schumer's credibility was challenged for hearing and following the will of his constituent regarding his vote the Iran nuclear deal.

“Senator Schumer is somebody that came out and opposed the international agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He was wrong about that position. And most Democrats agreed — disagreed with him in taking that position,” Earnest added.
“And when PEOPLE look at the facts here when it comes to funding for homeland security, they’ll recognize that he’s wrong this time, too,” he concluded, to audible astonishment from reporters.

What PEOPLE is Earnest talking about other than the those who agree with Kerry and Obama? Earnest, and by association the administration, just insulted the intelligence of the people from New York.

got to be cursed being stuck with a name like Wasserman!