DNC

The question was never about authority. I argue:

My underlying point was about DNC threat credibility. The four states didn't break the rules, so therefore their intransigence does not threaten the DNC's credibility. Sure, you may argue that it's unfair, and that, as you say, "we might have to change the system" and mention the 4 region idea. Great idea. But who enforces it? If one state pulls a short straw and is scheduled to go in May, what entity will prevent them from moving their election up? Basically, any solution requires that the DNC enforce the rules of the solution, and enforcement requires punishment.

You can basically come down on one of two sides in this: either the DNC should have the power to issue credible threats (by having the power to enforce the rules if necessary), or they shouldn't.

If you argue that the DNC should not have the power to issue a credible threat to states, how can we possibly prevent the frontloading chaos in the next election?