You won't hear any arguments from me about how exciting, and open, the presidential nomination process is.

Candidates previously considered dead in the water (see: John McCain) can utilize a multifaceted, cross-country primary and caucus season to boost their stock and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Giving hopefuls the opportunity to interact with voters from all different backgrounds, moreover, and connect on a grass-roots level, means the Mike Huckabees of the world can gain momentum and exposure without the name recognition or financial resources of the 'rock star' candidates.

All of this being said, the nomination process is in my opinion seriously flawed.

For an example, just look at the neck-and-neck Democratic race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It is at this point evident the party feels it has two viable candidates for the presidency.

Apparently the voter base feels the same way, because it can't seem to make up its mind which of the two Senators it wants to see in the White House.

After Clinton's much-needed victories in Texas and Ohio, it appears increasingly likely that the Democrats will go to convention without an annointed nominee. The decision of who will represent the party, therefore, will be left in the hands of the Democratic Congressman, Governors, party leaders, and hodgepodge of influental figures that make up the "superdelegates."

Honestly, are you kidding me?

Voters across the country have been following this election for months, and go to the polls with the mentality that their votes can make a difference, and at the end of the day the party puts the choice in the hands of an elite group.

Bucking the party's namesake, I think the avenue is decidely undemocratic.

The superdelegate system was created in 1982 to empower party officials and leaders and give them more of a say in the nomination process. They initially comprised around 14 percent of the total delegate count, but that number now stands at 20 percent.

Superdelegates matter significantly more than all of the pledged delegates in California, our nation's largest state. That's a problem.

I also take issue with the gaping lack of uniformity in the system.

I am certainly no expert on federal election law, but something needs to be done about the fact that strategically, Democrats and Republicans are running two different races.

Most Republican contests are winner-take-all, while Democrats appropriate delegates based on the percentage of votes received.

The nominees, nonetheless, are running for the same position.

I question whether McCain would have the Republican nomination locked up right now if delegates were all distributed proportionately. Likewise, Clinton may have booted Obama out of contention if she were competing in winner-take-all races, having won the most delegate-rich states.

I have other issues with the nomination process as well (I'm such a cynic), but I'm going to leave well enough alone for now.