Primaries are not elections. They are private intra party affairs.

Also, as far as I am aware, other than 1 district in Brooklyn whose votes were not counted in time in the Dem primary, there was hardly anything "corrupt" about either party's primary (and even that district went towards the winner anyways, and wouldn't have made a difference if every vote went in the opposite direction).

While not corrupt, or illegal, caucuses in US primaries are extremely undemocratic instruments, however, that is the exact opposite of what is considered the best method of voting in a democracy (secret ballot).

> Primaries are not elections.

Yes, they are.

> They are private intra party affairs.

That wouldn't stop them from being elections, but primaries are public affairs carried out by the State. (Caucuses are more like you describe, but even they often have state involvement.)

> caucuses in US primaries

Caucuses are not in primaries, they are an alternative to them.

> Caucuses are not in primaries, they are an alternative to them.

Are you familiar with U.S. elections? Caucuses are very much part of the primaries. They are how certain states perform their primaries. Iowa, for example.

> Are you familiar with U.S. elections?

Yes. Intimately.

> Caucuses are very much part of the primaries. They are how certain states perform their primaries.

No, caucuses are a (formerly, universally used—primaries are a newer thing) alternative to primaries still used in a minority of states (and sometimes, by some parties but not others in a state) to select delegates to Presidential nominating conventions.

Because primaries have over time displaced caucuses as the main candidate selection mechanism, and because the campaigns are somewhat nationalized, and because there isn't a handy name for the whole process, the whole national process of selecting such delegates is sometimes sloppily referred to as “the primary” of each party.

> Caucuses are very much part of the primaries

This is a disconnect on jargon. Primaries mean elections. Caucuses are an alternative to primaries. Both primaries and elections constitute the process by which American parties select delegates for their party conventions. The whole delegate-selection and convention assemblage is loosely referred to as the "primary" in the popular press.

What corruption do you think you see?

I have a feeling that you may be being disingenuous, based on the wording of your question, but the one of the most glaringly obvious examples was Bernie getting pushed out by his own party.

I'm not at all. throwaway123156 put it well above, but there is not, in my mind, corruption. The Democratic party is a private group that defines it's own rules, including how a candidate is selected. (The same is true for the Republican party - see how primary votes per state are allocated differently between the two parties). The Democrats had a rule that allowed _actual_ members to have an increased count in their vote (superdelegates).

Additionally, Bernie was _not_ a member of the Democratic party - he was an independent caucusing with the Democrats who chose to run as a Democrat. There a lots of good reasons for party members to not back a candidate who chose not to be a member and buy into their ideals until it was (potentially) advantageous for him to run as president.

Oy. If nothing else, Bernie is an independent. The Democrats are not his party. They are his natural allies, or should be, and he understood U.S. elections well enough to know that if he ran as a third-party independent he and the Democrats would both lose, electing their natural antagonist: whichever Republican. So, in sum, Bernie ran in the Democratic primary to be the Democratic candidate, but he was not and is not a Democrat.