Markusd just posted a diary about Republicans voting in the Texas primary. Markusd, of course, is entitled to be offended by Republicans "crossing over"; cross-over voting in our open primary has been a bane for Democrats for decades. Indeed, it explains why Texas has such a unique "hybrid" system for delegate selection.
It's my understanding . . . and fellow Kossacks correct me if I am wrong . . . that one consequence of the Texas hybrid is that it gives "the Democratic activist base" an opportunity to "fix" an election gone awry due to mischievous Republicans. To be sure, I cannot find any documentation for this claim, but the logic is fairly obvious, I think -- caucuses are attended by people who care to show up twice, and such people are more likely to be "real Democrats" than the average primary voter. Moreover, a caucus attendee has to have the guts to say who he or she supports in public, something that a troublemaker might find difficult to do.
The problem with Republicans crossing-over to cause shenanigans is not limited to Texas, and it can't really be solved with a truly closed primary, either.
(For what it's worth, I don't mind Republicans voting in our primary, so long as they are doing it for the "right reasons" -- either because they are totally fired up for one of our candidates (the best reason), or because they care enough about America to vote against one of our candidates whom they truly, honestly loathe (the second best reason). I hold special contempt for those who think they can get cute with strategy -- trying to get our "least electable" candidate nominated -- and this has been a big problem in Texas in the past).
At any rate, the reason I bring up the Texas hybrid is because I think it is instructive on how we as a party can move forward and reform our delegate selection rules.
We're at a point now where it's virtually assured that either Hillary or Obama will be nominated with support from the "superdelegates." I don't think anyone really likes this outcome.
So my proposal is this: why not have a hybrid system nationally and get rid of the superdelegates? Each state can have their own primary or caucus, as now. But the participants in the state delegate selection contests could then "vote again" in a national "virtual caucus" a month or so before the National Convention. Perhaps twenty percent of National Convention delelgates could be elected this way.
Such a system would be more democratic than superdelegates, but would also allow the "base" an opportunity to intervene after the state delegate selection contests have been held and "fix" the outcome if it goes seriously awry -- either because of crossover from mischievous Republicans, or, more likely (sadly), because of a (self-inflicted?) mortally-wounded nominee-apparent.