| Indeed. Moreover, this is what political parties do! They try to influence elections; they don't rig them such that votes aren't counted, like some banana republic. (Sanders supporters will no doubt point out some voting anomalies, which ought to be clarified, though Sanders was still trounced in every measure of support; from delegates to popular votes, etc. etc.) Just look at the RNC and their attempts to interdict Trump's rise. Now that he's the nominee, they have no choice but to throw their money behind him (though support-wise, many other prominent Republicans are still holding out). The DNC has largely treated Bernie the same way the RNC has treated Trump. If you're the DNC, responsible for electing Democrats up and down the ticket, who are you going to support: someone who's spent a few decades raising money on behalf of/campaigning with other democrats (not out of altruism, of course, but still)? Or someone who joined the party a year ago for the sake of having a major party's megaphone during election season? The situation is even more stark on the other side. Trump wrote checks to Democrats before "coming out" as a birther in 2012. And yet, in the case of the Republican party, the primary voters chose Trump. In the Democrats' case, Hillary. Both attempted to throw their weight around – because that's their job. And it's very distinct from "throwing" or "rigging" an election. |