You've Got to Laugh, You've Got to Cry, You've Got to Slap 'Em Silly

This is not a "Latino matters" issue per se, but to the extent that many of us are politically active, are registered to vote, and/or vote (and if you don't do any of those, WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?  WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?), this issue is worth talking about.  Particularly for those of you out there who supported Obama during the primaries.

You've heard the Clinton campaign's attempts at trying to give Hillary at least a plausible argument for the nomination.  You know, "she's won all the states Democrats must win in November," "the pledged delegates can be poached," "the superdelegates can and should vote any which way they want," "the Florida and Michigan delegations must be seated in accordance with the primaries' results," etc.  And you have to understand that this is the equivalent of being down by three touchdowns with 2:00 to go in the 4th quarter and no timeouts left: your chances of pulling it off are just slightly better than a snowflake's chance in hell, but you need to keep going for that Hail Mary and the onside kick.

All of which suits me fine, until people start talking about how unfair the primary process is.  "They" should have spoken about this about, what, a year-and-a-half ago, when the rules were laid down.  But what really gets me going - and what really makes me write this down - is when people use just plain dumb arguments.  Like this:

As we have known for a long time, the Democratic delegate selection process is a travesty. Starting with the disenfranchising caucus system, which shuts out legions of voters from the process, to the unbalanced proportional system of awarding delegates by congressional district (which produces such perverse results like a candidate winning 60% of the vote in a district receiving the same amount of delegates and a different candidate receiving 60% of the delegates with a 50.1% of the vote in another district), to the overweighting of regions arbitrarily and haphazardly (for example, in Nevada rural district were overweighted, in Texas urban districts were overweighted), to awarding low turnout states disproportional representation to high turnout states, the entire system is a travesty of democracy.

Let me put it bluntly, anyone holding up the pledged delegate count as representing the "will of the people" is simply full of it. It does not. It thwarts the will of the people. BY DESIGN.

My first point is, well, my first point above.  If we have "known for a long time" that this is such a bad system, why are you complaining now?  Or, why are you still complaining now?  Unless, of course,  "a long time" means "since Hillary fell behind."

The rules were the rules, are the rules, and will continue to be the rules. They were the same for Clinton & Obama.  That one candidate, Obama, was smart enough to figure out how to campaign more effectively within those rules only makes him more appealing because he is clearly better organized.  You win elections because (a) you have enough support and (b) your organization can and does get every possible vote out to the polls or caucuses.  On that alone, Obama deserves the nomination because he has figured out a way to get more people out to vote.

to the unbalanced proportional system of awarding delegates by congressional district (which produces such perverse results like a candidate winning 60% of the vote in a district receiving the same amount of delegates and a different candidate receiving 60% of the delegates with a 50.1% of the vote in another district),

I didn't want to post this again, but this diatribe deserves to be picked apart in detail.  Besides the fact that "the rules are the rules,"  I actually believe that this is a problem.  However, the solution is to have the primaries just like the Republicans' in that they should be winner-take-all.  Why?  Because that's how the general election will be played out.

That said, unless you apportion delegates in accordance with the number of raw votes each candidate gets, you could make this argument for any other form of apportionment you make based on geographic area.

to the overweighting of regions arbitrarily and haphazardly (for example, in Nevada rural district were overweighted, in Texas urban districts were overweighted),

This is not terribly consistent.  After all, if the delegates are allocated on the basis of congressional districts, and

[e]ach congressional district is to be as equal in population to all other congressional districts in the State as practicable, based on the decennial census counts

then the delegates cannot by definition be over or underweighted.  It's so obvious you need to laugh!

to awarding low turnout states disproportional representation to high turnout states, the entire system is a travesty of democracy.

Call this the "bigger is better" argument.  Again, "the rules are the rules."  Besides, if the basis for your representation is the congressional district, you have already predetermined that turnout will not be an across-the-board deciding factor.

Now, is it a bad idea or a good idea?  Is it a "travesty of democracy"?  If you say "yes" then you're pretty much saying that everything about the way in which politics are conducted in the U.S., from your school district and judgeship election, is a "travesty" because, one way or another, we do the same thing.

The bottom line?  Don't question the rules after the voting starts.  Each system has it's pros and cons.  For example, if you want a system where delegates are allocated based on turnout, you're creating a disincentive to campaign in small states because, all things being equal, they will have a lower turnout.

If you want to adopt winner-takes-all, it gives the most popular candidates at the start of the primary cycle a remarkable advantage.  Keep in mind that McCain was able to bounce back because he won New Hampshire convincingly after finishing a credible fourth in the Iowa caucus.

The other thing to keep in mind is that, whatever system a party uses, the candidates must plan their strategy in a way that delivers success under those rules.

The rules are the rules.  Like the sword, you live by them and you die by them.