the DNC reportedly argued that the organization's neutrality among Democratic campaigns during the primaries was merely a "political promise," and therefore it had no legal obligations to remain impartial throughout the process.
the Democratic nomination process was radically revised after the 1968 fiasco at the Chicago Convention in order to win back the droves of disgusted voters who’d abandoned the party, and a major component of that revision was giving the people a voice in the nominating process by instituting primaries and caucuses. Had they not done this, had they not promised the American people a fair and balanced democratic primary process, the Democrats risked losing party viability and being replaced by another party that was more appealing for voters to engage with. By admitting that they have been lying about taking this promise seriously, the DNC is admitting that its party probably should have perished sometime in the 1970s. They deceived the American people into letting them remain.
You could definitely argue that the introduction and use of "Super Delegates" was a major blow to the idea of allowing the people the chance to choose. I won't argue against superdelegates but I will argue against their being able to choose a side and alter the voting I mean Bernie was doing well in some states but still had no momentum because of Super Delegates...
To get them to admit that:
The DNC charter was revised after Chicago 1968
You could definitely argue that the introduction and use of "Super Delegates" was a major blow to the idea of allowing the people the chance to choose. I won't argue against superdelegates but I will argue against their being able to choose a side and alter the voting I mean Bernie was doing well in some states but still had no momentum because of Super Delegates...
And if you think anything will change in the foreseeable future, have I got a bridge for you
and ocean front property in Arizona too!
I can't wait to put the bridge over my new ocean into Colorado!!! So Great!