I'm not arguing that the DNC operates differently than the RNC, or any other party. Did i say that? Imply that? Nope.

I'm acting like there is an APPEARANCE of choice that can quickly be overrode, and regularly is, to the detriment if those who put faith in the system at hand. That is called tin pot authoritarianism.

I used the hearing as an example because the DNC themselves said the votes don't matter in the end. They can do what they want. What can you not understand about the danger of that sort of system?

It's funny you bring up superdelegates because they actually don't have to vote for anyone who wins votes. Not only are they unbound, they can switch votes at ANY TIME up until nomination. They do not have to follow voter will. You honestly think that's a good idea? Someone who, I'm guessing here, was horribly upset at Clinton not winning because she got majority popular vote.

The fact that all you did was lob multiple personal attacks and not actually answer to the premise says everything I need.