Just to insure a good controversy, the Democratic nomination will come down to "super-delegates", regardless of the remaining primaries. Even if one of candidates had a clean sweep (which wont happen), they wouldn't have enough delegates for a first ballot nomination.
Judging by my email, neither side is happy about this. "Let the voters decide" is the mantra.
Except that this is the direct result of the Democratic party primary rules. Rules so convoluted that even the experts disagree on what the current score is (each of the major networks show a different total delegate count).
The Republicans have a nice, simple scoring system: "winner take all." That's it. Like Baseball, the score is settled and the game is either a win or a loss.
The Democratic scoring system is more like Olympic gymnastics (or figure skating). Rules vary by state, and points (delegates) are awarded on a variety of criteria. So candidate "A" scores points for nailing certain moves (say, districts), while candidate "B" ends with a higher score for the round. Nevada is a classic example of the Democratic muddle, where Clinton won the state overall, but Obama won more delegates.
So the Democratic party, in their infinate wisdom, created "super" delegates to make sure that the final score was "fair." But the super delegates are like the "Austrian" judge in gymnastics: they're suspected of being biased. Their motivation and integrity are in question.
Whoever ends up as the Democraric nominee will be seen as tainted by the opposition, because the final score will be questionable. Because the scoring system is subjective, the results are open to debate.
But those are the rules of the game.
Judging by my email, neither side is happy about this. "Let the voters decide" is the mantra.
Except that this is the direct result of the Democratic party primary rules. Rules so convoluted that even the experts disagree on what the current score is (each of the major networks show a different total delegate count).
The Republicans have a nice, simple scoring system: "winner take all." That's it. Like Baseball, the score is settled and the game is either a win or a loss.
The Democratic scoring system is more like Olympic gymnastics (or figure skating). Rules vary by state, and points (delegates) are awarded on a variety of criteria. So candidate "A" scores points for nailing certain moves (say, districts), while candidate "B" ends with a higher score for the round. Nevada is a classic example of the Democratic muddle, where Clinton won the state overall, but Obama won more delegates.
So the Democratic party, in their infinate wisdom, created "super" delegates to make sure that the final score was "fair." But the super delegates are like the "Austrian" judge in gymnastics: they're suspected of being biased. Their motivation and integrity are in question.
Whoever ends up as the Democraric nominee will be seen as tainted by the opposition, because the final score will be questionable. Because the scoring system is subjective, the results are open to debate.
But those are the rules of the game.
(Graphic added)
1 comment:
It will be very damaging if the winning candidate is not seen to be the winner among "the people." Let's hope the results are clear and not subject to last-minute finagling.
Post a Comment