No matter who you’re pulling for, the Democratic nomination process has revealed a number of serious flaws. Or at least a number of areas of the process that have become issues for the nomination. At minimum I would include:

1. The scheduling of caucus/primary dates
2. The DNC’s response to how states schedule caucus/primary dates
3. The existence of super delegates
4. The number of super delegates
5. The existence of caucuses
6. The existence of primary/caucus hybrids
7. The methods for apportioning pledged delegates based on a wide variety of systems (by state senate district, congressional district, past turnout, etc)
8. Awarding delegates proportionally [Ed.: Added after posting]

I’m not casting judgment on any of these issues, but it is worth noting that both major Democratic campaigns have complained about many of the things on this list. Party members, bloggers, and activists have complained. A large part of the election story has been about how fouled up the process has been and how murky the process has kept the nomination.

If we wanted to work on changing the rules for some or all of these areas of concern, what would it take? Where would it have to take place? I have to imagine that it is likely that there will be a new Hunt-style commission to reform how Democrats pick their nominee. If so, how do we get grassroots progressives on it?

Separate from whoever you want to win, I think it’s very clear that the process needs reform. Rather than complaining about the need for reform as a vessel for partisan gain, we should be thinking now about what would have to be done to make this process work better, be more democratic, and be less susceptible to criticism.