I think one of the oddest states is Texas. People always look at me funny when I tell them we vote AND caucus.

You go to your polling place and vote during the day. You then head back to your polling place at 7 p.m. when the polls close and caucus. Only those who voted during the primary are eligible for the caucus.

And of course with no party registration (unless they changed it since I moved away), you can literally decide that day which party you're going to vote for and caucus with.

From Wikipedia:

Texas holds primary election and begins caucusing at the precinct conventions immediately after primary elections close. Any person casting a vote in the party primary is eligible to caucus at their precinct location at 7:15 pm of election night. Allocation of delegates between primary and caucus varies among political parties. According to Texas Democratic Party rules, District Level delegates are allocated based on primary elections. At-Large delegates are allocated based on state convention delegate sign-ins after caucusing at the precinct and district/county levels.

Kerry got the nomination not because of delegate math but because Iowa & NH made him the front-runner. that's one of the reasons the DNC tried something diffrent this year. long before anybody started counting delegates in 2004, the deal was done. this is the first year since 1968 that we could have an unsettled nomination at the convention, which is a scary thing -- because then we have to worry about super-delegate math.

You don't have to wade through the whole plan, unless you're into mind-altering, eye-glazing torture (believe me, I know about this). The DPO website has a summary of the plan, and a "walk through" of how the process works. When you get onto the website, click on the Convention button on the left side, and you'll see them.

We'll also be giving presentations on the delegate selection process around the state, starting Feb. 14 in Polk County. The schedule will be posted on the website as it's developed.

Yeah, James.... that's an interesting idea. But you still need some sort of human vehicle for making the decision.

Otherwise, if it's just a tabulation of votes, what happens if a candidate dies - or is nailed in a damning scandal?

In a delegate-driven system, the delegates could/would step up and make a decision on behalf of their states.

In 1968, for example, RFK took a commanding lead after winning the California primary -- and then he was killed. The delegates had to then decide on the nominee at the convention. (Which is partly what led to that raucus '68 convention.)

Spreadsheets are nice (I live and die by 'em), but ultimately you need some humans to make the decision. If you didn't have delegates elected roughly in proportion to the electorate, you'd just have a handful of party bosses making the decision.

And, btw, the reverse is also true. If you didn't have delegates who were passionately committed to their candidate, it'd be much easier for party leadership to trump up a fake or minor scandal to oust a nominee that they didn't like.

Thanks, Rab. I've added Maine to the list.

And you're right: Kerry's competitors dropped out because the "momentum" coverage killed their fundraising.

I've been pleasantly surprised this cycle with the delegate-focused coverage. Gee, it's almost like the media wants the race to keep going. (Gotta get themselves a chunk of all that money they're raising, eh?)

For what it's worth, my much discredited proportional-predictor chart, along with other assort analysis (how hard it is to catch up once you're in the hole with proportional delegates) is here.

Gee, it's almost like the media wants the race to keep going. (Gotta get themselves a chunk of all that money they're raising, eh?)

Man, there's a writer's strike on--this is free content! They're soaking it up.

There was a pitched battle in the streets of Chicago, spilling over at times on the convention floor.

"Pitched battle" or, as the commission headed by future Illinois Governor Daniel Walker to investigate the events that took place outside the convention called it, a "police riot".

It was the clearing of the demonstrators from Lincoln Park that led directly to the violence: symbolically, it expressed the city's opposition to the protesters; literally, it forced the protesters into confrontation with police in Old Town and the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Old Town area near Lincoln Park was a scene of police ferocity exceeding that shown on television on Wednesday night. From Sunday night through Tuesday night, incidents of intense and indiscriminate violence occurred in the streets after police had swept the park c ear of demonstrators. Demonstrators attacked too. And they posed difficult problems for police as they persisted in marching through the streets, blocking traffic and intersections. But it was the police who forced them out of the park and into the neighborhood. And on the part of the police there was enough wild club swinging, enough cries of hatred, enough gratuitous beating to make the conclusion inescapable that individual policemen, and lots of them, committed violent acts far in excess of the requisite force for crowd dispersal or arrest. To read dispassionately the hundreds of statements describing at firsthand the events of Sunday and Monday nights is to become convinced of the presence of what can only be called a police riot.

One of our supers, Gov. K., has already committed to Hillary. What happens if Oregon gives Obama a resounding victory? Should the Governor have the ability to discount the voters of his own state in order to nominate someone we don't want?

And another of ours, Congressman Blumenauer, has committed to Obama. Of course there's nothing to stop one or more of them from changing their mind between now and then. It happens all the time.

If we didn't have all these super delegate positions, then that would mean people like Gov K and Blumenauer would run at the CD or state level for a delegate position. And having been there and done that both in Texas and in Oregon, I can tell you that the elected officials win the seats. So you'd end up with fewer "every day" Dem volunteers and activists getting to participate in the system.

Thank you darrel. That's closer to accurate IMO.

What you wound up with was NE machine politicians (although I think that the '68 election was the beginning of the end for them), their hard hat followers, Dixiecrats, and Republicans all on one side of the issues, (not just talking about the convention or Chicago here) and the small and fractured young liberals on the other.

As for the super delegates, I don't like the concept much, and the fact that they were introduced to keep the rabble from electing another McGovern makes it worse.

That said, however, I know quite a few of the Oregon superdelegates, and there is zero chance that they are going to fall in line behind the governor or anybody else for that matter.

A little devil's advocate moment: It's worth noting that every single superdelegate was democratically elected by somebody. Whether it's actual elected officials - or party officials elected by Democratic precinct committee people.

The only exceptions to that are Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Walter Mondale. They're superdelegates by dint of their former status as elected officials.

An excellent point, Miles.

I guess I wonder about what the alternatives are, in the event that no candidate gets a majority of the delegates.

Do we just keep going ballot after ballot after ballot? The only way that makes a difference is if the delegates do something other than the will of the voters that sent them there.

Does Howard Dean decide? After all, he's the chairman of the party. But that doesn't seem very democratic.

Who decides? What's the escape valve?

sign-ins after caucusing at the precinct and district/county levels.