It's true -- the selection of presidential nominees is not a democratic process. And why that's OK.

Last weekend, another state, Georgia, held a convention for selecting delegates to the Republican convention this summer -- and once again the Ted Cruz people walked away with the lion's share of the delegates, despite Donald Trump's having won the primary vote by a 14% margin over Ted Cruz.    So once again the Trump campaign is charging that the system is rigged, that delegates are being stolen from him, etc.

Some clarity about this particular example in Georgia:   the correct number of delegates that Trump earned by being the front runner will be pledged to vote for him on the first ballot.   The complaint is about what happens after that.   They will be free to abandon Trump and vote for Cruz, if he does not win on the first ballot at the convention.   Trump loyalists didn't get elected, at this convention, because Cruz out-maneuvered them. 

The Cruz people understand all this and have been working for months to be prepared to do just what they did.   It's not illegal.   It's politics.   The fact that Trump and his people did not understand or prepare for this is their own failing.

Now there's a good argument to be made for changing this system so that we have truly democratic primaries.   I admit that is initially appealing, but let's look a bit deeper at what the political party system is all about.

1.  Political parties are voluntary, private organizations that can make their own rules.   Joining the party means that you agree to abide by their rules in their system.   If you don't like their rules, you can join another party.  Or you can try to work from within their party to change their rules -- for the future.   Like sports, you don't change rules in the middle of the game.    Which is what Trump is asking to do.

2.  The party runs a slate of candidates under their banner, receiving their help, hoping to elect a group of office holders who will support party principles and policies.   The whole point is trying to win elections.   So they don't want to nominate someone who can't win in the general election.   They also don't want to nominate someone to run on their ticket that does not represent their party principles and values -- nor should they have to.

3.  It used to be that the party bosses chose who the party would support, often in the legendary "smoke-filled back rooms."  The people had little say in it, and the bosses never pretended to be fair or democratic.   That has largely changed, although the degree and type of say the people have differs among the states, from actual primary votes, to caucuses, to some sort of convention.

4.  Nevertheless, when people go to their regular voting places, they naturally assume that the party primary is an "election," governed by laws that guarantee equality and fairness.    The party may choose to conduct its primary that way;   but it is not illegal for them to do it another way, like caucuses or conventions that are not representative.   These presidential party primaries are not government elections.

OK.   That's the How It Works question.  What about the Why? question.   Here's how Jay Bookman explains it in his AJC column:

"[Trump] is right.   The system is indeed rigged against him, just as the system in the Democratic Party is rigged against Bernie Sanders.  But it is 'rigged' for good reason.

"The genius of the American system -- the key to its survival for more than two centuries -- is its ability to let the people govern themselves and make decisions while ensuring that self-governance does not devolve into mob rule, in which the passions of the moment overwhelm common sense. . . ."

Bookman then cites the Electoral College, rather than popular vote for president;  the Bill of Rights, which forbids the majority from denying basic rights to the minority;  the presidential veto;  and the Supreme Court -- all of which can override popular pressure from pushing us to rash and unwise actions.   He continues:

"The political parties have installed similar checks on populist passions, designed to require second or even third thoughts before rash action can be taken.  The delegate-selection process, the existence of superdelegates on the Democratic side -- they are all designed to slow a revolution, to make it more difficult but not to make it impossible.

"Those obstacles are a feature, not a bug, and it's a feature worth preserving."

On the same AJC editorial page, conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, with whom I disagree on almost everything, wrote this -- and, for a change, I do agree.

"First of all, it is not Trump's nomination until after he has earned it, under the rules that apply to all candidates.  Nobody can 'steal' what was not his in the first place. . . .

"Political parties are private institutions.  They exist to choose candidates they think can win elections.  How they do it is their business.  Nobody has a constitutional 'right' to vote to choose a party's nominees. . . .  The time to change rules is before the game starts.  If the current rules need changing, there will be four years before the 2020 elections in which to try to create better rules."

Yes.   But something in me also wants the revolution that Bernie Sanders is inspiring -- and I think in the long run it is the way our country should go.    But, is it too much of a leap at one time that would leave him without the support in congress that he needs to change so much that would have to change?   That's exactly my dilemma.

I want a crystal ball to tell me whether it is possible.   If it can't work, then I don't want to risk losing the White House and all the setback that would bring . . . in the quest for the ideal.

Ralph