Four years ago, I welcomed Bernie Sanders into the race for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination. I had recently gone through a rough period of depression as I realized that Hillary Clinton would certainly be the nominee. I opposed her personally less than I opposed the people the Clintons have historically relied on to propel them into power. Of all the people in the family and their entourage, I actually liked Hillary the best. But that didn’t mean I wanted Mark Penn calling the shots. A big part of the reason I enthusiastically embraced Barack Obama was because I wanted to vanquish the Clinton machine. Now I had to accept that they were making a comeback. I decided that there wasn’t much point in spending the next year whining about it, however, since it was critical that the Republicans didn’t take over the White House and undo everything Obama had accomplished.

I figured Bernie would make a good case for a lot of progressive issues and keep the pressure on Clinton to hew somewhat to the left. I didn’t expect him to put up a real fight, and I never really considered that he had an iota of a chance. Unfortunately, he did just well enough to make his supporters believe differently, and then Sanders began to believe it himself.

That’s when the trouble started, and that’s when I got annoyed. Still, when the time came for me to vote in Pennsylvania, I cast my vote for a Sanders delegate. By that time, there was no doubt that Clinton would be the nominee, and I had resolved my reservations about that. My vote wasn’t a protest against her, but rather an effort to add a progressive voice to the convention delegation so that they might perhaps have some influence on the party platform.

The party platform isn’t the most important document in the world, but it’s usually the most important thing that is decided at the national convention. A more progressive delegation should produce a more progressive document, and it should have some limited influence over the party’s future direction.

I was able to make that decision because Sanders refused to drop out. I actually would have preferred that he drop out, or at least stop actively campaigning against Clinton, but the upside was that I could still vote for his delegates and they could actually be seated at the convention.

This time around, that isn’t happening. New York State just took Sanders off the ballot since he is no longer an active candidate. In states that have already held their elections and in which Sanders won delegates, many of those delegates will be reassigned to Biden. Some of this is based strictly on pre-established party rules which were agreed to by the Sanders campaign, and some is up to the discretion of state officials, as is the case in New York. Either way, it strips away the influence and much of the work that was put in by the Sanders team.

I think this is unfortunate. I consider it fair under the rules and the unique circumstances of a global pandemic, but it’s also a result of people thinking about primary elections the wrong way.

I said above that I voted four years ago for a Sanders delegate. I put it that way because that’s what I actually did. I did not vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary anymore than I had voted for Barack Obama in 2008. I voted to send someone to the convention who promised to vote for Sanders on the first ballot. That’s what we do when we vote in the primaries.

And it seems to me that we shouldn’t have that vote taken away from us. If the candidate frees that delegate to vote for someone else, that’s fine. But they’re still there to participate in all the other work that the party does at the convention. If you can simply take that representative away and replace him or her with someone else, then why did you ask me to vote in the first place?

It’s not uncommon for people to rally around a candidate who has little realistic chance of winning. But at least they know that if they can get them a decent number of delegates, they’ll still have accomplished something. When you take those delegates away, then all the effort goes for nothing.

Now, New York State basically said that there’s no point in holding an election with Sanders’ name on the ballot because it won’t change the outcome and will just lead to more people showing up and possibly spreading the Covid-19 virus around. This is what happens when you look at the primary as a vote for candidates rather than a vote for candidates’ representatives. From a public health perspective, I can understand the rationale for wanting a low-turnout election, but it’s simply wrong to say the vote would make no difference.

As for the party rules that strip some earned delegates from candidates who drop out, that really ought to be up to the discretion of the candidates. Of course, if they agree to these rules up front, then there isn’t a lot of argument against it. But I think they should rethink those rules.

This isn’t some grand conspiracy, but it’s a bad practice. There should be more than a pittance of Sanders delegates at the convention because they worked for and earned that right. A candidate also shouldn’t be incentivized to stay in a lost race just to protect the delegates he or she has already won.

I think it’s hard enough for Sanders’ fans to stomach losing without having all their work thrown in a garbage bin. It’s probably going to make it harder for the party to reconcile for the general election.

Worst of all, I see very little upside to this. In theory, it might lead to a less acrimonious convention, but that would only be a manufactured illusion.

I hope the rules in 2024 will make more sense.