On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote: > >> This primary was mild by most standards. What we had was basically a >> tie, due to the proportional delegate allocation. In a winner take all >> system by state, Clinton would have easily won on Super Tuesday. >> > > I think winner take all systems are hugely unfair and undemocratic. > It depends on how much "all" there is to take. If the prize is a single seat (a representative, for example) then winner-take-all is inevitable. On a larger scale, our overall system of governance always was a compromise to hammer out a union among a number of inherently unequal states. IIRC, Europe had every bit as much trouble putting together a confederate system for the EU, with similar results. In fact there is quite a bit of similarity between the U.S. of 1800 and the present day EU as far as the system of governance goes. Our real undemocratic institutions are the Senate (2 seats per state, regardless of size or population) and by extension, the Electoral College. But as originally designed our Federal government was envisioned to be about as relevant to your daily life as the U.N. is to your life today -- i.e., hardly at all. So absolute, per-person, democracy wasn't as important a consideration as just getting the thing done. > > Perhaps she will become the Majority Leader in the Senate which is a >> far more powerful position than VP. >> > > I've heard suggestions about putting her on the Supreme Court. Talk about a permanent bee in the Repub's bonnet! > And doesn't have the problem of her being Obama's running mate. I hope he > picks John Edwards. > > Daniel My understanding is that Edwards isn't interested. There are a lot of good and interesting choices out there. My governor from Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius, is apparently on the short list. I love the woman; I think she'd be fantastic. Rod
