I can't tell if this is sarcasm, so I will answer without sarcasm:
Yes, they should be held responsible (for some value of "responsible"). It is ultimately their responsibility, which goes along with the power they wield. It's what they signed up for. And this doesn't absolve the people who directly caused the issue. You want leadership to focus on ensuring that their delegates are competent and not corrupt.
There are some shades of gray here, of course. In the US, these leadership positions don't have absolute power. It isn't necessarily their *fault*. But it is absolutely their *responsibility*.
Yes, they should be held responsible (for some value of "responsible"). It is ultimately their responsibility, which goes along with the power they wield. It's what they signed up for. And this doesn't absolve the people who directly caused the issue. You want leadership to focus on ensuring that their delegates are competent and not corrupt.
There are some shades of gray here, of course. In the US, these leadership positions don't have absolute power. It isn't necessarily their *fault*. But it is absolutely their *responsibility*.