Intellectually Honest: Democrats not all that Democratic.

Breitbart.com had an interesting article today about how Obama's campaign used party rules to foil Clinton.

What I found most interesting, however, is how the party that in 2000 demanded that every vote count (and, presumably, count equally) does everything it can to obscure the will of the voter within their own party's nomination process.

The fiasco of the 1968 convention in Chicago, where police battled anti-war protesters in the streets, led to calls for a more inclusive process.

One big change was awarding delegates proportionally, meaning you can finish second or third in a primary and still win delegates to the party's national convention. As long candidates get at least 15 percent of the vote, they are eligible for delegates ...

Another big change was the introduction of superdelegates, the party and elected officials who automatically attend the convention and can vote for whomever they choose regardless of what happens in the primaries and caucuses.

Superdelegates were first seated at the 1984 convention. Much has been made of them this year because neither Obama nor Clinton can reach the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination without their support.

A more subtle change was the distribution of delegates within each state. As part of the proportional system, Democrats award delegates based on statewide vote totals as well as results in individual congressional districts. The delegates, however, are not distributed evenly within a state, like they are in the Republican system.

Under Democratic rules, congressional districts with a history of strong support for Democratic candidates are rewarded with more delegates than districts that are more Republican. Some districts packed with Democratic voters can have as many as eight or nine delegates up for grabs, while more Republican districts in the same state have three or four.

The system is designed to benefit candidates who do well among loyal Democratic constituencies, and none is more loyal than black voters. Obama, who would be the first black candidate nominated by a major political party, has been winning 80 percent to 90 percent of the black vote in most primaries, according to exit polls.

So, not only do they have 'superdelegates' -- individuals within the Democrat party who are given the power of thousands of individual voters and who, this year, will actually be the ones chosing the Democrat nominee despite record turnout at the polls -- but they also weigh certain districts more heavily so that the 1,000 votes a candidate picks up in a 'faithful' left-leaning district is worth up to twice as much as the 1,000 votes a candidate picks up in a district that'd normally be harder for the party to win.

That doesn't really seem all that 'democratic' to me.