Something that is mentioned regularly by Republican frontrunner Donald Trump is that the primaries are corrupt. Is he just upset because he has lost? I would argue that is the case, because nobody likes to lose. On the other hand, Trump might have a point. For the longest time now it seems that both Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders are fighting against the system that allows the freedom of electing a President. How come both Trump and Sanders seem to be at a disadvantage in the primaries? They are obviously against the establishment, but why is a country founded on the principles of democracy find itself in a corrupted, possibly tyrannical government?

Why does it seem like the general population vote doesn’t actually matter? Trump is the frontrunner leading at nearly 40% in national polls. I do not always trust polls, but why is the frontrunner facing grief about not reaching 1,237 delegates? Shouldn’t the people of the United States decide who the next President should be? Let’s talk about Bernie Sanders who is on a hot streak recently winning eight of nine states…

Oh wait, have you seen the Wyoming primary results? Sanders crushed, I mean defeated Clinton with 156 votes to 124. Still a positive number for him. However, that is only half of the statistics in primaries. Let’s talk delegates. Despite Sanders winning the general vote, him and Hillary Clinton split the delegates at 7. Delegates are the single most important statistic in the election process. The number of delegates essentially nominates the candidate for both Democratic and Republican parties. What stat is more appealing to you: 156 votes to Sanders and 124 votes to Clinton, or 7 delegates for both Sanders and Clinton? I would assume a supporter of Bernie Sanders would rather choose the popular vote over the delegates in this case. This example does not even come close to mirroring the election process, but puts Sanders at a disadvantage because of the superdelegates.

Superdelegates can be a touchy subject with Sanders’ supporters. Generally, most of the superdelegates would support Clinton as of now. Superdelegates decide their choice of nominee officially at the convention, but what they currently report is unlikely to change because of the drastic difference between Clinton and Sanders. Superdelegates can be supporters of Bill Clinton, who would likely support Hillary. Even Bill Clinton is a superdelegate! This creates some sort of barrier or wall for Sanders to get around. The superdelegate count is not in his favor. This is seen in the New Hampshire results earlier this year that Sanders crushed Clinton in the popular vote, but almost split her in delegates. What if I told you about 34% of the delegates Clinton received were superdelegates? Don’t forget superdelegates can change their mind, but look at how they can sway primaries.

This brings me into the final part of the article where I try to wrap all of this together. To get things straight, there are no superdelegates in the Republican party. Trump is often compared to Sanders because of their high populist attraction. If there were superdelegates in the Republican party, Trump may have been out of the race by now. This brings me to the point of how the system functions. Sanders and Trump are both anti-establishment candidates, Trump faces the Anti-Trump Movement while Sanders faces the superdelegates. Both factors are linked to the establishments. This is the uphill battle Trump and Sanders face. They are fighting against people within their party instead of the opposite party. Some superdelegates pledged money and support to Clinton before they even found out who Bernie Sanders was. It is a system of democracy filled with corruption. The nominee is still chosen at that certain delegate amount no matter the popular vote, which makes these primaries almost irrelevant. Maybe the delegates should only vote to save the people some time instead of waiting in the voting lines.

Or maybe this was Sander’s idea of redistributing the wealth?




Read More Here: