Reply #7: They aren't "inherently less representative," they are discriminatory [View All]

[jobycom]

Here's how the Washington state legislature described it while instating a primary that the Democrats ignore: The…presidential nominating caucus system in Washington State is unnecessarily restrictive of voter participation in that it discriminates against the elderly, the infirm,
women, the disabled, evening workers, and others who are unable to attend caucuses and
therefore unable to fully participate in this most important quadrennial event that occurs in
our democratic system of government.

You might notice that those are Clinton's strongest demographics.

Texas and Washington are the two states that have both a primary and a caucus. In Texas, Obama lost the popular vote by 4 percent, and won the caucuses by 20 percent, and used that disparity to win the delegate count even though he lost the popular vote. In Washington, Obama won the popular vote by 4%, but won the caucus by 37%. Since Washington Democrats divide delegates based only on the caucus, you can see that his delegate gain was completely out of proportion to his popular vote victory.

There's every reason to believe, based on polls and general trends, that Clinton would have won some of the states Obama won caucuses in, if those states had had a popular vote. Even the ones she would have lost would have been much closer, as Washington proves.

In other words, it's not Clinton who's ignoring the will of small states. It's Obama.