The Democratic Party’s effort to choose a presidential candidate has been a bit of a train wreck.

Oh, don’t get me wrong. It’s been fun. But is it democracy?

Before I get too far into this dissertation, I should acknowledge that I didn’t vote for either of the candidates in the Democratic presidential race. As I usually do, I voted in the primary with the largest number of contests, and in Cass County this year, that was the Republican primary.

Still, like many Americans, I’ve been following the Democratic contest with great interest.

I was particularly fascinated by the reports that followed last week’s West Virginia primary. Hillary Clinton literally trounced Barack Obama, and yet no one seems to give her even the slightest chance of winning the nomination.

The numbers don’t add up, they say. It’s all over but the shouting.

Maybe so.

I’ll be honest and say that I don’t really understand the Democratic Party’s process for selecting a presidential candidate.

Some states have primaries. Others have caucuses. Texas has both.

And in some cases, one candidate can win the statewide primary by a wide margin only to wind up splitting the delegates.

Some states have a system that gives more delegates to congressional districts with a history of voting for Democrats. Where’s the fairness in that?

And what’s the deal with these superdelegates?

Party leaders apparently put the superdelegates in place to protect the voters from themselves. In case a candidate emerged from the primaries with no real chance of getting elected, the party leaders wanted a system in place that would give them a chance to ride to the rescue.

Obviously, that was a flawed concept.

No party leader in this election wants to be seen as bucking the will of the voters, and yet, here in Indiana, most of the 13 superdelegates are backing Obama, even though Clinton won the primary.