Washington Caucus delegate apportionment system shows how Democratic Party leaders try to "game" the system in favor of the "entitled one"

For those primary delegate watchers confused about why, despite winning 73 percent of the caucus vote in the state of Washington last week, Bernie Sanders has been allotted only 25 of the 101 delegates up for grabs. As if the issue of the extremely undemocratic “superdelegate” system that the Democratic Party employs isn’t enough, this is another curious anomaly that has no benefit save for the party “favorite.” In fact, the party doesn’t refer to actual “pledged” delegates in these counts, but “soft” pledges, meaning that while for now Sanders might “technically” have 73 delegates, these delegates will not actually be able to make a “hard” pledge until the Democratic Convention in July, by which time they could, of course, switch their vote. Naturally  it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to knw who is supposed to “benefit” from this.

According to website called “thegreenpapers.com,” the procedure went something like this:

The Precinct Caucuses meet at 10am to elect delegates to the legislative district caucuses and county conventions based on presidential preference. After a preliminary tally of presidential support is completed, attendees are then provided a chance to reconsider; and a final tally is taken.

That is where the “logic” of the process ends. After that, how delegates are apportioned is rather difficult to ascertain: “67 district delegates are to be pledged proportionally to presidential contenders based on the will of the caucus participants in each of the State's 10 congressional districts. A mandatory 15 percent threshold is required in order for a presidential contender to be pledged National Convention delegates at the congressional district level.”

Sanders should have 73 percent of the delegates, Clinton 27 percent. How mathematically “challenging” is that supposed to be? Well, there are “fine points” to the equation that is equally nebulas:

The 67 National Convention District delegates are pledged according to the preferences expressed at the Precinct Caucuses. The National Convention 22 At-Large and 12 Pledged PLEO delegates are pledged using the preferences of the 67 National Convention District delegates. National Convention Pledged PLEO and At-Large delegates are elected at the State Convention by the State Party Committee according to the results of the Congressional District Caucuses.

You’d think that there would be a “reason” why this “process” is deliberately incomprehensible. Maybe state Democratic Party leaders want to keep “control” over the process, and given the fact that most of the state’s 17 “superdelegates” (the PLEOs, eight of whom are from the Clinton-controlled DNC) have already pledged to Clinton, there must be a “method” to the madness. Oh wait, there’s more: “These 17 delegates and will go to the Democratic National Convention officially "Unpledged." 

So, whether unfairly or not, the “official” delegate tally barely dented Clinton’s lead despite Sanders winning 75 percent of the vote in three states last Saturday. That some news media continues to inflate Clinton’s numbers by including superdelegates “pledged” to her continues to make things look awfully “bleak” to voters who value ethics, principles and moral scruples in their preferred candidate.

But don’t give up hope; even if the Obama Justice Department refuses to open a grand jury investigation into Clinton illegally storing classified information on her personal server, which in this country comes just short of espionage—just as Oliver North’s dealings with Iran were right on the edge of treason—revelations from the FBI’s current investigation of Clinton’s brazenly irresponsible acts may  indeed require a grand jury investigation in which conspiracy to commit perjury by Clinton associates, and Clinton herself, would be the least of her problems: If it can then be proved that the Chinese and other “enemy” hackers culled state secrets from Clinton’s poorly-secured system, then Clinton’s megalomaniacal thirst for power can be curtailed.

But then again, the pro-Clinton news media would have to take an unlikely “interest” in Clinton’s crimes to push federal law enforcement to do the same. Even more unlikely, Clinton’s supporters would have to look beyond gender politics and her claims that it is she who is being “abused,” when it is we who are being abused.