Are closed primaries corrupt? I don't think so. Remember, the political parties are private organizations. Think of them as clubs. Most clubs don't let outsiders vote in their elections. To my thinking, if you're going to vote in a Democratic primary you should be a registered Democrat, if you're going to vote in a Republican primary you should be a registered Republican.
As for Democratic superdelegates, they exist for a good reason. Or rather, they exist for three good reasons: George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis. See, for years the Democrats nominated their most hippy-dippy, left-wing, and generally unelectable candidates they could find, and they lost big. Hell, even Jimmy Carter barely won in 1976 — and that was against the guy who pardoned Nixon. The superdelegate system was put in place to help balance out the party's tendency to pick losers.
But times have changed. The country in general is a lot more liberal than it used to be. None of the guys I listed above could have imagined legalized marijuana or same-sex marriage, for example. So maybe it's time for the system to change again. My guess is that after this year it will. Especially if Hillary loses.
Here's the thing. Are they corrupt? No. As you said, the parties are private organizations. Their primaries aren't actual elections in the sense of them being an official US government political process. It's a way for them to find out who would have the best chance of winning. Are they corrupt though? Well kind of. Not for being closed - where that's a thing - but because they're a very cleverly constructed ruse that allows the establishment to put on an air of democratic process to the rubber stamping of their candidate of choice. It's just accepted as fact by most people that one of the winners of the two big primaries will win the presidency. This is made palatable by the fact that the people (for the most part) "chose" that person. Supposedly. The system was rigged all well and dandy in their favor until they got a little too complacent and now that someone who's able to beat them by their rules has a chance to win it's all on display for everyone to see. Just watch the clip of the unbound delegate explaining that, well no. The person who the people choose isn't necessarily who will wind up winning. Is that the way it's always worked? Yeah, but people were blissfully unaware or just didn't feel the effects of this for the most part and that's exactly what the establishment needed. The machine is breaking down, and the more it breaks the more pieces are colliding with each other causing ruptures in the once near-pristine facade. Is it over for the establishment? It's not over until the fat lady sings, and I don't hear any of your mothers breaking out their Celine Dion impressions. They can still fix it, but now they know more and more people are becoming wise to their game and they'll have to do some overtime to get things back under control. That's the real win right there.
Edited by Shokkou, 04 May 2016 - 07:41 AM.
