System isn’t ‘rigged,’ just hectic

Minnesota recently agreed to replace the caucus electoral system with primaries.

Jasper Johnson

This past week, Minnesota lawmakers agreed to change Minnesota electoral procedures from caucuses to primaries. During this election season, criticisms have abounded over “rigged” electoral procedures. In reality, the system has been misunderstood due to national party procedures and the hectic nature of federalism. 
I’m glad to see Minnesota has chosen to adopt the primary system. That being said, the electoral system isn’t “rigged,” and the nature of the system is not a suitable explanation to describe Sen. Bernie Sanders’ failure to secure a lead in the election.
The delegate system is widely misunderstood. Sanders actually attempted to clarify the primary election for his supporters, saying it’s“not rigged, I think it’s just a dumb process.” With so many different election procedures from state to state and party to party, primary elections are bound to be messy. Many people prefer primaries, especially because the time commitment and location of caucuses can preclude some Americans from participation. Superdelegates have their merits, too. While some may see them as unfair, the conservative, establishment nature of the party is a positive and could help prevent reckless demagogues from rising to power.
Virtually any way you count it, Sanders’ campaign is doomed and has been for a while. It’s perfectly fine to disagree with aspects of the hectic, federalist election policies, but simply using it as a scapegoat for Sanders’ shortcomings is unjustified. Primaries are a much better system than caucuses, but overall, the primary election system isn’t engineered. In Minnesota, the simplicity of primaries will help put an end to claims about election unfairness.
Jasper Johnson 
welcomes comments at