Sangetsu, I hoep I don't distort your meaning, by pulling what points I think should be highlighted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangetsu
I understand the irony of the super delegate system. ------
As the country evolved, the rules were changed, and pretty much all adults were given the right to vote. Both political parties were champions in their way of giving this right to all people, -----
One might argue that the super delegate system and the Electoral college system are principally the same, but they are not, the Electoral College is a blanket system to which all parties must adhere. -----
What you see as "historical" is nothing of the sort, it's the same cereal made by the same machine, but served in a different box.
This election should be the most important in history; we've rarely needed good leadership as much as we need it now. But once again we are forced to choose between puppets instead of men.
|
For the most part that's a good overview and I only disagree with you on the details. But the details can make a serious difference.
This election is historical in some ways. Obama is bi-racial, but when I was still in public school, even 1/10 black would have prevented him from voting in Mississippi, much less ever running for a national office. To see even one white face in that state support someone even resembling a black for president is an historical milestone. And the same goes for Hillary, those in less severe terms. Women 40 years ago would never have gotten even one delegate, except in the ultra liberal districts that elected Bella Abzug and Diane Feinstein. Women were still to be seen and not heard, especially in political arenas. Even as late as 20 years ago when I was a Gore delegate, I can assure you that the "good ole boys" did their best to force me to "play nice and go home and take care of my husband" instead of represent my district's voters.
We finally got rid of the poll tax in the 1960's, but there are still two aspects of voting in United States elections that need to be removed.
First, the "party lever". These days its a punch instead of a lever, but the effect is the same. You can vote for an entire slate of candidates without ever seeing who they are by simply marking a political party's punch. That is wrong! You should have to literally vote for every single candidate, or abstain from voting for that specific office.
Second, the Electoral College. It became obsolete in the mid 1900's, but prooved it when it overturned the popular vote in 2004. When it reversed the popular votes in 1824, 1876 and 1888 it could be argued that popular vote counting was seriously flawed. But if you accept that arguement then the miscarriage of justice in 2004 is even worse, because the best documented miscount would have made the lead of the popular win even higher if corrected. Gore won the popular election by a verified 0.5 % of the votes. If that seems small, Nixon only won 0.9% and no one objected to that until it was way too late.