The Primary System Confuses the Heck Out of Me. Does It Add an Unnecessary Layer to the Voting Process?

The deeper we get into this ridiculous election cycle, the more I learn about delegate apportionment. It makes no sense to me.

I thought my annoyance related to media reports that the vast majority of this cycle’s Democratic superdelegates pledged to Hillary Clinton, giving her an advantage right out of the gate. Then I learned that Bernie Sanders actually lost in the delegate count despite winning Wyoming. Really? Just how does that work? How is that fair?

Circumstances force me to admit that I agree with Donald Trump that a system that allows Colorado to circumvent the primary voting process entirely is inherently wrong. Instead of letting the voters decide, the Colorado GOP gave Cruz the win in order to deny Trump a win.

Why can’t our system reflect one person, one vote? The size of each state’s electoral college delegation is based on the total number of its representatives and senators. If the number of representatives is based on population anyway, doesn’t our current system add an extra, unnecessary layer to the whole process?

In my state, voters in my party of choice elect delegates that represent each of the candidates. I guess I don’t understand why we can’t just vote for the candidate? Whoever gets the most votes wins. Simple.

I may be missing an obvious point. Bottom line is, this election cycle has engaged me more than I’ve been in decades. And that’s a good thing.

This entry was posted in My Blog. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The Primary System Confuses the Heck Out of Me. Does It Add an Unnecessary Layer to the Voting Process?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *