Nom­i­nat­ing pro­cesses need stan­dard

Cecil Whig - - OPINION -


The 2016 nom­i­na­tion process for the two ma­jor party can­di­dates has had many twists, turns and sur­prises. But one thing that has be­come abun­dantly clear is that the process used by each party to nom­i­nate their can­di­date is deeply flawed — even “rigged” as Don­ald Trump and Bernie San­ders are al­leg­ing.

The po­lit­i­cal party in each state — not the state gov­ern­ment or the na­tional party or­ga­ni­za­tion — sets its own rules, so we end up with many dif­fer­ent ways of han­dling the process of elect­ing each state’s del­e­gates to the party con­ven­tions.

Pre­lim­i­nary elec­tion ver­sus cau­cus, open ver­sus closed, pro­por­tional ver­sus win­ner-take-all, dif­fer­ent fil­ing dead­lines and re­quire­ments, su­per del­e­gates ver­sus no su­per del­e­gates, elec­tors com­mit­ted to vote for the can­di­date that won the state only for one bal­lot, etc. What a con­fused nightmare.

We need each party to de­velop one se­lec­tion process that is used con­sis­tently in each state. Per­haps then vot­ers would have more faith in the process.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.