The nominating rules have formed more turbulence in this elections than in the past decade. Both Democrats and Republicans question the status quo as the GOP considers revoking Trump's nomination despite his most likely winning the popular and electoral count. In addition, Democrats question our system as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is nearly equal to Hillary Clinton in popular count but down 469 to 31 in super delegates.
While our Constitution dictates that elections swing toward the candidate with the highest electoral count, for years now there have been situations off and on where one may win the popular vote but did not receive the election because they lost in the electoral. Since we pride ourselves on being a democracy, shouldn't we ultimately elect who the people want? If a majority elects one man to be president, why would we prohibit them from taking office. Ultimately, the "winner", the one with a higher electoral count, will probably enter office with out a strong support system if he didn't win the popular vote and won't be favored enough to get much done anyway during his term anyway.
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/fight-over-delegate-rules-escalates-for-both-parties/
Seriously all these entangling rules are so dumb. By the end, it hardly seems like a democracy anymore...
ReplyDelete