This is a common practice because the power structure we have now uses a natural-model legitimacy.
Conservatives describe elite identity as “natural.” So, naturally, Hillary Clinton starts out with 500 “superdelagates” that have to be persuaded not to vote for her. Naturally, then, conforming to the utility of elite identity (legitimacy by the numbers), the elite have more than one vote “yielding to” the difference, which is then described as a conforming confirmation of the natural identity (the intuitive legitimacy of having natural utility by the numbers). This is what an organized tautology looks like and it is does not have the proper legitimacy of being empirically valued and verified by the numbers. It is rigging the market, conforming to the expected privilege of an elite class who argue having the right to determine the fate of others because it is endowed by nature, thus forming the conservative concept of “the natural right” derived from (conforming to) a natural existence, confirmed on demand.
(Having to null the hypothesis of elite identity–persuading superdelgates not to vote for Mrs. Clinton–appears to have legitimate empirical value, but it is really what science calls a confirmation bias. It has the force of authority but not the legitimacy of diversity. Appeal to authority is fallacious and exactly what the scientific method is not!)
Like Thomas Hobbes said about the divine right of kings: the identity of elite authority being the product of its self without any natural accountability is completely delusional.
There is nothing really natural, or divine, about yielding to the risk (the natural utility) thought to be true and naturally avoided (by default) simply by declaring it not to exist. It just lacks good “sense” (intuitive moral intelligence that naturally exists on demand, having natural utility, confirmed by the numbers).
First thing, notice we have two conservative parties described as left and right-wing. Controlling for content (trying to determine what reality is, exactly, without risk), the probability of producing a nominee that does not conform to the conservative model of “objective reality” is close to zero, but not exactly. (There is a zero-hedge effect: existing measure, resisting nothing, occupying space over time, like a transcendental number, in priority).
What is the expected value of not conforming to the natural model of diversity?
(See other articles by griffithlighton on retributive value and ECV-symmetry.)