So Scott==you want YOUR version of democracy to be imposed over 250 years of history and vested interests? OK.

I don’t think it’s my definition. I think it’s the definition. One person, one vote. That’s democracy. The founders set up a republic, deliberately NOT a democracy. I disagree with them on that point. They did a lot of great things. Giving people in some states more power than people in others was not one of them.

Is the United States a democracy?

So, in your mind, should democracy rule and all those votes be couned, or should the rules in place be followed?

Democracy should rule. I’m very curious about your follow up question though.

How about the current bru-ha-ha over Michigan and Florida. Not very democratic not to count their votes but “the rules” of the party told them clearly what would happen and all the candidates agreed.

So, in your mind, should democracy rule and all those votes be couned, or should the rules in place be followed? ((Hint, there is a follow up question no matter how you answer.))

As I said above, in theory, your statement is all well and good. However, in practice, our two party system is so broken and limiting in our actual choices, that each party is essentially charged with choosing about 50% of our presidents for us and without significant input from us. This is another part of our broken democracy. Personally, I want to vote for candidates, not parties. I think with publicly financed elections, where each candidate who gets enough signatures would get a fixed amount of money with which to run a campaign, we could do away with the parties altogether. We would, of course, have to prevent candidates from spending any money other than the fixed amount on the election. There are some technical difficulties with this. But, even with some minor quirks in the system, it would be far better than today’s.

And, yes, the electoral college must go.

Democracy, one person, one vote. Right now, we have one Wyoming person = 3.8 California votes. This is not democracy.

Although the odds are stacked against you, you could always form your own political party. Remember, the last successful new political party was the Republican Party 150 years ago.

Choosing a candidate is their prerogative. If I am a member of a specific party, then I have some input into the selection process. If that input is too minor or is ignored than I guess I won’t stay a member of that party for long. Nor can that party count on my help next election.

As for running for President? As I understand, there are over two hundred candidates every year that pay a filing fee in order to run. While some have serious, if unrealistic, pretensions such as the Communist Party, Greens, and Libertarians, most are just Joe Smucks who want the notoriety of having been a Presidential candidate.

My father once told me, in one of those worldly wisdoms all fathers have, that you can either be a rebel and try to change the system whole heartedly or you can become a member and make your stamp from the inside. And the Electoral College must go.

I don’t want the wrong lizard to get in.

You’ve got a very good point. In theory, if we could choose from among many parties this might not be so bad.

However, from a practical standpoint, the only real choices we have are the democraps and the repugnicans. So, who the two parties pick are our only choices. This destroys democracy.

To have it further ruined by the electoral college so that we don’t even get the one of two we’re presented only makes it worse.

Now, if we want to form our own group, or join some other group, to help us organize and fund our ego trip, we can do that. I don’t know, but I assume the Green Party has requirements before they will support you–like being green? Thats not democracy. Why should the Dems or Pubs be any different just because they have captured the ball for the time being?

So–you are NOT recognizing where the democracy part of the analysis should be==much more debateable it should be at the national level, but I don’t see any valud argument why private parties should be dictated to by some devotion to the crowd.

In fact–if the superdelegates did their job==years ago they would not have run Bob Dole==everybody knew he would lose in a popular democractic national election. The republican party members where pretty naive and someone with a more pragmatic view of things “should have” overruled them “if” the repugs actually wanted to win office.

On the national bit, I agree. Accident of History the States have the power to screw up the popular will—but history often gets a majority vote, right from the git go.

Way to start an intelligent debate. Thick skin etiquette on this site, of course. But, you do not win points in real debates with such childlish lead-ins.

Why shouldn’t the parties have the right to choose their own candidate?

Because, in a country so dominated by two party politics with no real hope of any independents doing anything except damage to the real election (see Nader in 2000 for a prime example), the parties are essentially choosing the next president. Or, at the very least, each is choosing one with about 50% chance of winning. This means that they are having a hugely limiting effect on our real choices for president. Further, the electoral college functioning just like the parties makes a sham of the whole process. To call ourselves a democratic nation is a complete and utter lie.

bobbo,

I think the remarks above should explain my answers to you as well, with the exception of the remarks about the lead in. As for confusion of democracy, if you believe our current system to be in any way a democracy, I think you should A) check the definition and B) check our founders’ opinions on the subject. They did not believe in democracies and deliberately set out not to create one. I think they were wrong on that point.

BTW, not only are the delegates under no obligation to vote in any particular way, neither are the electoral college members. So, popular vote can go to a candidate in the general election. That candidate could also win the popular vote in literally every single state and that candidate could still lose because the electoral college got bought by the other candidate. Democracy?