Changes

One state, Wisconsin is recorded as having voted ''twice'' according to the official surviving record in primaries and caucuses under the new rules Mondale's DNC machine engineered. The official record shows Hart winning a plurality, 44% to Mondale's 41%; three days later in a highly unusual move, the "Wisconsin caucus" delivered a 54% to 29% majority (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1984#Results_by_state|Wikipedia:results by state] to Mondale in a winner-take-all closed caucus.<ref>[[Progressive]]s would say ''Fighting'' Bob LaFollette turned over in his grave.</ref>. Wisconsin Democrats had won a ruling against the Democratic National Party in the state Supreme Court which the DNC appealed to in the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin was ''forced'' to abandon 80 years of direct primary election of delegates and adopt a closed caucus method of delegate selection (see [[Winograd Commission]]). Voters were disenfranchised, and only allowed to express a non-binding "presidential preference.”<ref> The ruling did not apply to Republicans which were in compliance with an 80 year old state law and the national party's rules of delegate selection. </ref>

One state, Wisconsin is recorded as having voted ''twice'' according to the official surviving record in primaries and caucuses under the new rules Mondale's DNC machine engineered. The official record shows Hart winning a plurality, 44% to Mondale's 41%; three days later in a highly unusual move, the "Wisconsin caucus" delivered a 54% to 29% majority (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1984#Results_by_state|Wikipedia:results by state] to Mondale in a winner-take-all closed caucus.<ref>[[Progressive]]s would say ''Fighting'' Bob LaFollette turned over in his grave.</ref>. Wisconsin Democrats had won a ruling against the Democratic National Party in the state Supreme Court which the DNC appealed to in the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin was ''forced'' to abandon 80 years of direct primary election of delegates and adopt a closed caucus method of delegate selection (see [[Winograd Commission]]). Voters were disenfranchised, and only allowed to express a non-binding "presidential preference.”<ref> The ruling did not apply to Republicans which were in compliance with an 80 year old state law and the national party's rules of delegate selection. </ref>

Wisconsin Democrats sued the DNC over its efforts to enforce the [[undemocratic]] rules of the [[Winograd Commission]] which targeted the 80 year old body of law behind Wisconsin's primary system, which the McGovern-Fraser compromise used to expand primaries to dozens of other states.  The DNC appealed to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] and won, forcing Wisconsin Democrats to abandon the direct primary election of delegates and adopt a closed caucus method of delegate selection. Because the state legislature had not acted yet, "voters" became "participants" and only allowed to express a non-binding "presidential preference”<ref>[http://www.bustle.com/articles/144701-what-is-a-binding-primary-or-caucus-these-distinct-events-require-delegates-to-do-this What Is A Binding Primary Or Caucus?], MORGAN BRINLEE, February 29 2016. bustle.com </ref><ref>The ruling did not apply to Republicans which were in compliance with state law and national party rules of delegate selection. </ref>, essentially disenfranchised. ''Fighting'' Bob La Follette's legacy, the founder of the [[Progressive]] movement, was completely undone.<ref>See [https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_Party_of_U.S._v._Wisconsin_ex_rel._La_Follette Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette], ballotopedia.org  </ref>

Wisconsin Democrats sued the DNC over its efforts to enforce the [[undemocratic]] rules formulated by the Winograd Commission which targeted the 80 year old body of law behind Wisconsin's primary system, which the McGovern-Fraser compromise used to expand primaries to dozens of other states.  The DNC appealed to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] and won, forcing Wisconsin Democrats to abandon the direct primary election of delegates and adopt a closed caucus method of delegate selection. Because the state legislature had not acted yet, "voters" became "participants" and only allowed to express a non-binding "presidential preference”<ref>[http://www.bustle.com/articles/144701-what-is-a-binding-primary-or-caucus-these-distinct-events-require-delegates-to-do-this What Is A Binding Primary Or Caucus?], MORGAN BRINLEE, February 29 2016. bustle.com </ref><ref>The ruling did not apply to Republicans which were in compliance with state law and national party rules of delegate selection. </ref>, essentially disenfranchised. ''Fighting'' Bob La Follette's legacy, the founder of the [[Progressive]] movement, was completely undone.<ref>See [https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_Party_of_U.S._v._Wisconsin_ex_rel._La_Follette Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette], ballotopedia.org  </ref>

Under the original rules, Superdelegates were not supposed to "commit" to  a candidate until the convention. Hart says he and his wife personally spoke with all of them to ask for their support, but virtually all were committed to Mondale for 2 years already<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080218151847/http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/gary-hart-how-s.html Gary Hart: How Superdelegates Did Me In in '84], Interview with Jennifer Parker, ABC News, Feb. 13 2008.</ref>.

Under the original rules, Superdelegates were not supposed to "commit" to  a candidate until the convention. Hart says he and his wife personally spoke with all of them to ask for their support, but virtually all were committed to Mondale for 2 years already<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080218151847/http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/gary-hart-how-s.html Gary Hart: How Superdelegates Did Me In in '84], Interview with Jennifer Parker, ABC News, Feb. 13 2008.</ref>.