There’s an absolutely bizarre article in The Huffington Post which showed up in my “Yahoo Stories of the Day” whose title is “Hillary Clinton has been called as winner of the Democratic Nomination”. I wondered if I had missed some news when I saw it, but I hadn’t. It was a blog piece which asserted that the press had already planned to call the election for Hillary before the primary in California was over — the minute she had enough pledged delegates and (supposedly) had super-delegates enough to be the nominee. The bloggers point is that the press is supposed to report news that has happened, not make news by predicting what will happen.
I don’t understand this whole thing. Hillary has been “the presumptive nominee” since the beginning of the race. That was fine, when she was the only one running. Once there is more than one person running for the office, there can be no “presumptive” within a democracy. In a democracy, people vote, and voice their opinions. No one knows who they are going to vote for unless there’s only one person running. If it were just Hillary, then, ok, you either vote for her or you don’t vote (for her).
When the party has a presumptive candidate, and decides regardless of what the vote is, and there is more than one candidate, that isn’t democracy either. The Party has a problem, or is the problem. There are all kinds of weird twists in our voting process, including the electoral college, but these things are usually a footnote to an already won race. We figure whatever happened, the right person came out in it all. But this year, I’ve got to wonder how much of this is just made up, or is extraneous. For example, why have staggered primaries and then complain that people don’t vote? If the vote is on a horse race that’s already been run, why vote at all? People get upset when the press calls a race before the voting is completed, because that seems undemocratic and people stay home on an election day. Isn’t the same true in the primaries, even if it’s the party that’s calling the race.
Honestly, I don’t care which of the democratic candidates, gets the nod. I’ll vote for either of them, because I respect them both (though I prefer Bernie). They certainly offer a better vision than Trump’s. Here’s the thing, though: people are sick of having the game rigged, people are sick of having their voice not heard. People are sick of being sold one bill of goods and getting another. The Democratic Party (as does the Republican) represents itself as bring a vision of democracy to elected office. If the party seems to play favorites, whichever candidate does finally get elected, in the booth or at the convention will be tainted. That means if Hillary wins (or Bernie does) because the party skewed the vote, they don’t win fully and people will always wonder what would have/could have/should have happened.
If the rules say that Hillary hasn’t won yet, then let that be the case. If the rules say Bernie can run in California as long he has the signatures to get on the ballot, then let him do that. If he wants to waste his time, it’s his time to waste. If he wins, then it wasn’t a waste. Either way, we’ll know. If Hillary wins, she got it through hard work and grim determination. If she and Bernie play all nine innings, the score will be correct, no matter what it says. There will be no doubt at least regarding the process. Whoever wins will do so “fair and square” and if people still want to be jerks about that, well that’s just them being jerks.It’s not the system’s fault.
If the democrats want to look like (and more importantly, actually be) a democratic institution, they need to listen to all the votes cast,and decide based on that. Doing anything to stop that count or the listening to it will only make it worse. May the best person win, so that we can have the best leader America can get.