Jill Derby, Chair of the Nevada State Party, also spoke out on delegates as the results came in. She emphasized that national delegate counts are "based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same," when in fact they could change at the convention. Derby added a disconcerting line to hammer the point home: "We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."
Translation: If this thing is close, "we" party insiders will "choose" for the rest of the state.
At least the sparring over delegates has forced out a rare political confession, helping expose the distortions of these party rules. And the reforms present themselves: Require binding votes, absentee voting rights, proportional measurement and a true popular vote.
Who came up with these rules? First of all, if Clinton won the popular vote (and that's an assumption, since we have no popular vote tally yet), then she should have a majority of the delegates. Just like in Iowa, second place John Edwards should've had more delegates than third place Hillary Clinton (he didn't).
But, once you get those delegates, they should be obligated to support their pledged candidate.
At the county and state conventions, those delegates aren't there to vote for "the nominee that Nevadans support". They're there to vote for the nominee they've been pledged to support.
It's a bullshit, nonsensical system. And I look forward, once this process is finished, to a comprehensive look at reforming our primary process.