I hear you, but texas is actually a supporting argument to mine and frank's thesis; the texas primary results disagreed (rather widely, as I recall) from the caucus results. why is that, and which one is wrong, and is the wrong one actually tainted somehow.
there is a huge problem with the way many states pick their candidates if what seems to be going on is actually going on.
and personally, I think party building should be specifically excluded from the process of picking a candidate for president for the same reason that "electioneering" (for lack of a better word) is prohibited from polling places. those places that you express your preference should be completely free of outside and undue influence, or there is no way to be sure that it is really your preference.
I definitely agree that primaries are much more accurate in reflecting the will of the most voters. Caucuses just don't get as much participation.
While I like part of what a caucus does, actual involvement in picking a candidate, I dislike that there's not as much participation.
The democratic party needs to take a good look at caucuses. I wouldn't be that upset if they were done away with.
On a similar note, I'm also for rotating primaries and not having Iowa and New Hampshire the first to go. I'm not for a national primary day, but a set number of meets that divide up everyone. For instance, maybe north east, south, central, south west, midwest and west and space them a couple of weeks or three weeks apart. And while I'm thinking up my new system, why not have it start until March or April and wrap up just a month or so before the national conventions.
