The paradox of a strong system of superdelegates in the 2016 primary season is that a significant section of the Democratic Party, which has them, wishes it didn’t, while the leadership of the Republican Party, which doesn’t have them, may well wish it did.
Left-wing Democrats have long argued that their party’s system of superdelegates is unfair because it gives too much weight to ruling elites, disenfranchising ordinary voters. Hillary Clinton’s lead in the delegate count — even as her rival, Senator Bernie Sanders, racks up win after win in state primaries and caucuses — has only sharpened the debate.
At the same time, with the failure of any establishment candidate to stop the populist insurgency of Donald J. Trump, the Republican Party also seems saddled with rules it doesn’t like. In its case, though, party leaders may wish they had something more like the Democratic approach.
Where the two parties’ systems are similar is the basic delegate mechanism: For both Republicans and Democrats, party members run in their home state to become “pledged” delegates at the party’s national convention. Pledged delegates are bound by the parties’ rules to vote for the winner in their state’s primary contest (or caucus).
No comments:
Post a Comment