1 of 42 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × Highlights from Bernie Sanders’s campaign, in pictures View Photos The senator from Vermont has become Hillary Clinton’s chief rival in the contest for the Democratic nomination. Caption The senator from Vermont is Hillary Clinton’s rival in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination. June 14, 2016 Bernie Sanders arrives at the Capital Hilton to meet with Hillary Clinton in D.C. Matt McClain/The Washington Post Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue. 
 
 When you walk into Hillary Clinton’s national campaign headquarters in downtown Brooklyn, the first thing you see is an unsubtle reminder of the state of the race. There on the wall facing the reception desk is a huge chart, with every single pledged delegate and the state in which each was won indicated. There it is, in a series of filled-in blue and pink boxes: Why Clinton will almost certainly be her party’s nominee. 
 
 That bit of data hasn’t been universally embraced. 
 
 The delegate counter at Hillary Clinton's headquarters. (Philip Bump/The Washington Post) 
 
 The delegate count is the only tally that matters in determining who will win each party’s nominating contest. It’s always been that way, but over time the selection of those delegates became more democratic. Right now the nomination process exists as a sort of demi-democratic process in which elections were retrofit to work with the internal decision-making processes of each party. So there are still vestiges of weirdness: caucuses, unpledged delegates and superdelegates and the conventions themselves. These are not the way purely democratic elections work. 
 
 Which is why some people are skeptical. The New York Times had an article over the weekend detailing the extent to which people think the process is at odds with democracy. It included this paragraph: 
 
 Backers of Sen. Bernie Sanders, bewildered at why he keeps winning states but cannot seem to cut into Hillary Clinton’s delegate count because of her overwhelming lead with “superdelegates,” have used Reddit and Twitter to start an aggressive pressure campaign to flip votes. 
 
 There's a lot that’s wrong with that understanding and that paragraph that’s worth exploring — which has ripples on the Republican side of the contest, too. 
 
 You've probably heard the term "superdelegates" recently – but what is a superdelegate, and why do they matter in this election? (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post) 
 
 This far into the primary season, both Clinton and Donald Trump have clear, unquestionable leads on that critical metric of pledged delegates. Clinton also has a significant lead with committed superdelegates, mostly party functionaries who can change their minds if they want to. The Republican side doesn’t have superdelegates, as such, but it does have a smaller pool of people who can vote for whomever they want. Most aren’t planning to vote for Trump. To get the nomination, Clinton and Trump need to hit a delegate total that’s still a bit further down the path, but still in reach for each. In Clinton’s case, she probably won’t get there without superdelegates tilting her way; Trump may not get there if he doesn’t lock down a number of upcoming primary states — starting with New York on April 19. 
 
 But that brings us back to the paragraph above. It is not true that Sanders is having trouble catching Clinton “because of her overwhelming lead with ‘superdelegates.’ ” He is having trouble catching her because he trails her badly with pledged delegates (as on that sign at Clinton headquarters), and the states he keeps winning are smaller states with fewer delegates given out. 
 
 In fact, by every possible democratic measure, Clinton is winning. She’s winning in states (and territories) won, which isn’t a meaningful margin of victory anyway. She's winning in the popular vote by 2.4 million votes — more than a third more than Sanders has in total. In part that’s because Sanders is winning lower-turnout caucuses, but it’s mostly because he’s winning smaller states. And she’s winning with both types of delegates. 
 
 So why is this bewildering? Because it seems like Sanders should be gaining big ground against Clinton — and so “superdelegates” get blamed. Consider two states, though: Oklahoma and North Carolina. Sanders won Oklahoma by 10 points; Clinton won North Carolina by about 13. But Clinton won 14 more delegates than Sanders in North Carolina. He won 4 more than her in Oklahoma. Because Oklahoma is a smaller state, with fewer Democrats. It’s as simple as that. Where Clinton has won big, there have often been a lot of pledged delegates at stake. Where Sanders has won big, there often haven’t. 
 
 On the other side, Trump leads with pledged delegates and has a significant edge in terms of raw votes — about 2 million per U.S. Election Atlas’s tally. But he spent the weekend trying to explain away his horrific performance in Colorado by blaming party rules. Trump has a better case for why the process in his party isn’t terribly democratic than does Sanders, but it’s not like he didn’t know the rules going in. Or, at least, that he should have. 
 
 Which brings us to another overarching idea that’s worth keeping in mind. It is essential for political campaigns to maintain both a sense of progress and a viable path to victory. To shape how supporters see what’s happening every Tuesday and Saturday. 
 
 Trump wants to prepare his supporters for a possible fight at the convention in Cleveland by suggesting that the party has been rigging the path. Sanders has done a good job of convincing supporters that he has a viable path to the nomination, ensuring that his record fundraising will continue unabated. Clinton wants to remind visitors stopping by her office — volunteers and press alike — that she’s winning this thing. 
 
 Party nominations are not federal elections. They’re party-run and have a lot of idiosyncrasies as a result. But more voters have voted for the front-runner in each party than for the runners-up. That’s what democratic results are supposed to look like. 
 
 The question that’s worth asking is why supporters of trailing candidates think that democracy is being subverted and who benefits from their thinking that. But we’ll leave that to you to assess. ||||| Denver Post uncovers that Democratic Party told Hillary Clinton's campaign about caucus counting mistake, but kept public and Bernie Sanders camp in the dark 
 
 Bernie Sanders won one more delegate in Colorado than first projected after the Colorado Democratic Party admitted this week that it misreported the March 1 caucus results from 10 precinct locations. 
 
 The party discovered the discrepancy a week after the caucus but did not correct the public record. 
 
 Hillary Clinton's campaign discussed the error with state party officials last week, but the Sanders campaign apparently didn't realize the issue until being informed Monday evening by The Denver Post. 
 
 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks to supporters during a campaign rally Tuesday evening in the Arts and Sciences Auditorium at the University of Wyoming campus on April 5, 2016, in Laramie, Wyo. Sanders won the Democratic presidential primary in Wisconsin Tuesday. (Blaine McCartney, The Wyoming Tribune Eagle via AP) 
 
 The mistake is a minor shift with major implications. The new projection now shows the Vermont senator winning 39 delegates in Colorado, compared to 27 for Clinton. 
 
 Even if Clinton wins all 12 superdelegates in the state, Sanders can finish no worse than a split decision. The new count contrasts with prior projections from The Post, Bloomberg Politics and The Associated Press that indicated Clinton would probably win the majority of the 78 delegates in Colorado because of her support from party leaders with superdelegate status. 
 
 If Sanders lands one Colorado superdelegate — two are still undecided and others are facing significant pressure — he could win the state's delegation. 
 
 RELATED: Ted Cruz dominates Colorado GOP convention winning all 34 delegates 
 
 The revelation that the state party misreported the results to the public March 1 comes as Sanders seeks to convince Democrats that he can win the nomination. 
 
 And it arises a day after the Colorado Republican Party faced blistering criticism from Donald Trump and his supporters about how it awarded national delegates in what the candidate called a "rigged" system. 
 
 In this Feb. 29, 2016 file photo, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign rally in Norfolk, Va. (Gerald Herbert, Associated Press file) 
 
 The double-barrel controversies regarding Colorado's caucus system will only reinforce calls for the state to move to a primary vote that allows more transparency and participation among voters who felt left out of the complicated process. 
 
 RELATED: Trump escalates challenge, calls Colorado GOP vote "a crooked deal" 
 
 Democratic Party Chairman Rick Palacio said that all votes cast Super Tuesday counted — and dismissed suggestions about fraud amid calls for his resignation. 
 
 "It was basically a reporting error on caucus night," Palacio said in an interview Monday. 
 
 The problem, he said, occurred when a volunteer at Byers Middle School in Denver punched the wrong vote tallies from 10 precincts into the party's interactive voice response system for the presidential preference poll. 
 
 The state party's website reported March 1 that Sanders won 14,624 votes, or 54 percent, in Denver County and Clinton took 12,097 votes, or 45 percent. 
 
 But the corrected numbers for Denver County give Sanders 15,194 votes, or 56.5 percent, and Clinton with 11,527, or 43 percent, according to official party results. 
 
 The error low-balled Sanders' margin of victory in the county by nearly 4 percentage points — a boost that shifted how the delegates were projected for the 1st Congressional District. 
 
 The results reported on caucus night indicated that Sanders and Clinton would split the district's eight national delegates, 4-4. But the new numbers gave Sanders five delegates and Clinton three. 
 
 "It was an embarrassment on our part for sure," Palacio said. 
 
 Still, Palacio suggested the campaigns received the correct data just days after the caucus in an e-mail from party officials. "It was our assumption they were using that data," he said. 
 
 The Clinton campaign realized the discrepancy between the public data and the official results and discussed it with the party Friday, Palacio said. 
 
 But the first public indication of the mistake only became apparent at the 1st District convention straw poll Saturday, when Sanders took five delegates and Clinton three. 
 
 Sanders supporters initially thought the campaign picked up support in Colorado. But Palacio said Clinton didn't lose support — "we just misreported it." 
 
 "It was basically one (caucus) site," he added. "Whomever dialed the numbers in must have had a little weirdness happen. The official results were reported correctly, but when they dialed them in using the touch-tone, it looks like something got transposed." 
 
 Democratic Party officials did not acknowledge the mistake until Monday . 
 
 Palacio downplayed the discrepancy, saying the site with the results — coloradocaucus.org — "is only used for reporting to the press. 
 
 "It wasn't used in an official way," he added. "So we didn't go back and actually look at the website versus the math sheets." 
 
 Upon being told of the new delegate math Monday, Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said "we are obviously pleased to essentially narrow the delegate lead by two delegates, one up and one down — it's a zero sum game." 
 
 As to whether Sanders can win a superdelegate and claim a majority of the state's delegation, Weaver said the campaign considers them separate tallies. 
 
 "Once we get to the convention, they'll have an opportunity to take a look at the two candidates and choose the candidate who is best able to defeat the Republicans in November," he said in an interview. "We are very gratified that we not only won the pledged delegates in Colorado, we apparently won them by a larger margin." 
 
 Still, Weaver expressed displeasure about how how the party reported the results. "It is certainly disturbing that the information gets sent to one campaign and not to another," he said. 
 
 Palacio said he didn't tell the Sanders camp about the divergent numbers "because it didn't necessarily affect (them). It was our mistake that ended up affecting the estimation of Hillary's campaign." 
 
 A Clinton campaign spokeswoman declined to comment. 
 
 Palacio said the party discovered no other errors and downplayed concerns about the tallies because the March 1 vote didn't apportion any actual delegates. 
 
 At each layer in the Democratic delegate process, the party takes a new straw poll — just as it will at the state convention Saturday in Loveland to award the final delegates. The precinct-level results merely inform the future votes and allow projections used by national news organizations to track delegate totals. 
 
 To match the results from caucus night, a campaign's supporters need to show up in the same proportions at the congressional district and state conventions. 
 
 Sanders won the state 60 percent to 40 percent in the popular vote and is expected to reap the benefits Saturday if his supporters turn out. 
 
 "It's not unusual for numbers to shift (loyalties) and that's why we have straw polls at each step of the way," Palacio said. 
 
 Palacio said the misreporting only reaffirms his push for a presidential vote run by the state. "I go back to my position on a presidential primary," he said. "I think caucuses are great for smaller races but Colorado has outgrown the caucus system in presidential years." 
 
 John Frank: 303-954-2409, jfrank@denverpost.com or @ByJohnFrank
– Bernie Sanders was shorted a delegate in Colorado's March 1 caucus after—in the words of the state's Democratic Party chairman—"a little weirdness" happened when vote totals were punched in, the Denver Post reports. Chairman Rick Palacio says a "reporting error" by a volunteer resulted in Sanders getting 570 votes—nearly 4%—fewer than he should have. The Colorado Democratic Party realized the error a week after the caucus and corrected it but didn't publicly acknowledge it until the Post discovered it Monday. "It was an embarrassment on our part for sure," Palacio says. And while the party discussed the new results with the Clinton campaign last week, it didn't inform the Sanders campaign because, as Palacio puts it, "it didn't necessarily affect" them. The Sanders campaign found out about the situation from the Post on Monday. The shift of one delegate can have big ramifications for both campaigns in Colorado. The new tally gives Sanders 39 delegates to Clinton's 27 with 12 superdelegates in play. Clinton was expected to get the support of the superdelegates and end up taking a majority of Colorado's total delegates. Now the best she can do is tie Sanders. And if Sanders picks up even one of the two superdelegates who remain undecided, he takes the majority. This is undeniably good news for Sanders, but don't get too excited yet. The Washington Post reports Clinton still has a huge delegate lead over Sanders—even without taking superdelegates into consideration—and "will almost certainly be her party's nominee."