Watching, fascinated, loving every minute of it, the current primaries and caucuses to determine who will compete for the presidency of the US, I am struck by the fact that whether or not I love watching it, the process is absurd. Ridiculous. Some states have primaries (i.e. votes) and others have caucuses (cf Lewis Carroll to see how ridiculous they are). And the ones which have primaries have arcane and weird rules to determine the number of "delegates" (some of whom may change their votes, if they wish, at some point). Surely it would be better to have a total vote count to determine the outcome?
And if it was deemed desirable to have states vote on different days, it certainly shouldn't be the case that their votes count for different amounts: early states get to help determine who gets voted off the primary ballot: but they don't get any extra influence. Nor should they get any less influence.
If every state had a primary rather than a caucus, perhaps it would be possible to pass such a proposal. But in the system we have now, is it possible to dream of a change?
Yours, dreaming of the day when the US endorses "one person, one vote" at last,
N.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
.........and what the heck is a "super delegate??"
It is all absurd.....but like you, I'm fascinated and stayed up WAY too late last night soaking it all in.
A "super delegate" is a party official: someone elected to congress (the house or the senate) or to a governorship: plus some others: they were put in place to ensure that the party could override a bad choice by the voters. Not a good thing.
N.
and why to people in Texas have the opportunity to vote twice?
Post a Comment