Conspiracy: Is it collusive in the sense of illegal? No. Is it conspiring in the sense sense of harmful cooperation? Yes. The democratic process needs to be fair, not for the winners, but for the losers. Even if your nomination is a near certainty, your procedures can not be partisan as it's that sense of procedural fairness which allows for there to be consensus and consent going forward.

Corruption: The way that she handled fundraising with the democratic party was corrupt. Again, it isn't illegal but anyone with half a brain can appreciate the clever scheme they put in place. Pay her own staff with the initial funds raised; then using the information gained on donors, go for a second round of funds for Clinton's own campaign.

Then, you have the Nevada Democratic Convention. Again, the reason that you do not adopt procedural rules like were adopted ahead of that convention is when things go south. There was frustration on both sides. If you have the power to ignore dissent and do so out of frustration, the result is your process amounts to authoritarianism. Roberta Lange was sick and tired after a long day; when you watch her calling for a voice vote at the end, she just rote intones the words and doesn't care that the nays were louder.

The collusive and corrupt way that the Clinton Campaign has been conducted shouldn't be necessary if she is such a strong candidate. Let's grant you your belief that she would have won regardless. Then, why engage in behavior that only has the end result of preventing a huge swath of voters from being unable to come back around, lose with dignity, and work towards building consensus?

I cannot and will not vote for her.