|
We obviously have some bizarre elections law nationwide that come to the front only when we have close elections.
Starting with the winner takes all for both the Republican primaries and for national elections. (Though recently a DUer, an Obama supporter, wished that we had a winner takes all in our primaries, too. One has to wonder whether s/he would have a similar wish if the positions of Clinton and Obama were reversed).
We noticed it first in 2000, when the popular votes did not match the electoral college. And many still call for the abolishment of this institution.
I think that the "founding fathers" were elitists who did not trust the judgment of the "regular folks." After all, until 1913, with the passage of the 17th Amendment, Senators were appointed, not elected.
And even though we do not follow the winner takes all in our primaries, we do have a bizarre way of allocating delegates. We first noticed in Nevada and may have occurred in other states - not sure - and will probably happen in Texas. Earlier today a reporter was interviewed on CNN and he predicted that Clinton will win the popular votes while Obama will win the delegates.
So if our system is so screwed up that on a state level allocation of delegates is in contrast to the wish of the people then, by all means, let the super delegates rebalance these allocation.
(It would be nice if the success of Obama will finally obliterate the gerrymeandering of districts to protect and preserved "protected minorities")
|