- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Hi Green Job, I think it is pretty obvious that people are arguing that the Supreme Court is one of the most important things that the president will do in the next few years. Not that that is the number one issue with voters. We’re a bunch of political junkies arguing about the election and talking about issues of paramount importance not popularity.
But I think you know that and are trying out some concern trolling. Better than the vitriol from the rethug trolls here who insist they will vote for McCain to spite the country.
The other thing- you also seem very worried about fairness between New Hampshire, Michigan and Florida. There’s no real equivalency here. New Hampshire already first in the nation status was protected. They moved it back because other primaries were encroaching on their date. MI and FL were told in no-uncertain-terms that they would be punished. I personally love the idea of taking away their superdelegates and leaving the committed delegates from the vote in some proportion.
However, there is no sense in comparing this primary to the republican – the parties get to make up their own rules about how they determine their nominee. There is nothing in the constitution about this and technically no one can be disenfranchised from the primary. But the parties want to attract and keep members, be seen as fair or people will walk away from their parties (which is happening in large numbers anyway.) If we wanted to and everyone agreed on it we could pull a name out of a hat or put golden tickets in candy packages to determine our nominee.
FWIW the democratic party system in the primary is proportional since that best reflects the values of the party and its members. The republicans do winner take all that comports with their black/white good/evil world view and I think the libertarians do a raffle with the serial numbers from their riffles.
