[Grovenet] Democracy Killing Democrats (and vice versa)

[David Morelli]

Jeff,

I had a History teacher once, who said that the problems with  
Americans was that they could not sit in a quiet room.  They wanted  
the answers, "now".

The Republican process provides a "victor" after the first few state  
primaries.  The balance of the states just don't count.

The Democratic process provides a spectacle for month after month as  
the candidates battle for votes.  And surprise, it is a close race  
which may not be decided until after every state casts their  
ballots.  Which means Oregon votes may actually count for the first  
time in twenty years.

It has been said that the skills in running a long term campaign for  
President may be similar to running a long term military campaign.  I  
suppose that the people who brought us "Mission Accomplished" should  
agree, since their political campaign gets finished so quickly, how  
could their candidates really plan a protracted campaign for some  
third world country?

Wam.  Bam.  Thank you mam!  versus "Till death do we part".

Oh well, at least the issues in the election news are the Democratic  
issues.  The Republicans don't get to choose the issues this year,  
and that will influence the outcome, I suspect.

David


On May 5, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Jeff Cooper wrote:

> Here's a general observation about the election:
>
> The Republicans have a "winner take all" approach to primaries...  
> so that if a candidate wins by only a few votes, all the state's  
> delegates are pledged to them (I'm not sure if this is true in all  
> states, but in the ones I monitored this year, that was the case,  
> please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this).  By doing  
> this the Republicans get a quick front-runner, the others drop out,  
> and there is little political infighting.
>
> The Democrats, by contrast, parcel out the delegates in each state  
> according to the percentage of the popular vote.  Although this  
> seems to be the height of the democratic process, look at the  
> result.  No clear front-runner, constant political infighting, and  
> (from what I read recently) the height of non-democratic result:  
> super delegates possibly determining the nomination.
>
> My "solution" is that the Democrats need to seriously reconsider  
> their method of determining their candidate in the future.  Over 30  
> years ago the national high school debate topic was on this very  
> issue, and the majority of the cases revolved on the holding of a  
> national primary.  Of course there are pros and cons to this (which  
> makes for lively debate!), but at the time my own personal feelings  
> were that this was the best way to select a candidate.  Other cases  
> involved the removal of the electoral college (but that's another  
> discussion point).
>
> My feeling is that the Democrats seriously need to revamp their  
> format of selecting candidates at this point, perhaps considering  
> either a national primary or using the Republican method of state  
> winner take all primaries.  There are certainly drawbacks to both  
> of those choices; however, having this nomination determined by  
> super delegates will be the worst possible option and outcomes for  
> the party.  They are already inflicting severe self-wounds by the  
> current method of selection.  Can they recover in time for  
> November?  What about future elections?  In-party reform is called  
> for.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff Cooper
> Lifelong Democrat (with a brief stint in the Green Party)
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.   
> Try it now.
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet