There are many things in life that I’ll never understand. These are things such as the fluctuation of gas prices as an election is near, how our economy solves its problems by increasing the price of everything, and most importantly, why we have delegates in a presidential election.
Please don’t misunderstand me, for I know the theory behind why we do these things, but they really don’t make any sense for success in the long term.
A few days ago, I was sitting in my Controlling Spin class listening to my professor explain to me why we have delegates in the presidential race. As I listened, my mind began formulating thoughts on why we even vote during the primaries or the November election if our votes don’t directly elect nominees or candidates.
In the 2000 presidential election we had Al Gore win the popular vote, but our current President won the Electoral College. How does that make any sense? Well, I have a solution, and that solution involves getting rid of delegates’ altogether and having a direct democracy. Let the people vote for who they want to see as the next President of the United States without having gatekeepers.
It does not make sense that we have to elect a small number of select individuals to represent our state as a whole in the upcoming convention.
During the Democratic primaries the winner and loser get a proportion of the delegates no matter the outcome. And it’s worse on the Republican side. If a candidate wins the majority of votes, in most cases he or she gets all the delegates, regardless if one candidate got one less vote. How does that make sense? In a direct democracy it would be straight votes from the American people. If five million people vote for Barack Obama and five million plus two vote for Hillary Clinton, then Hillary wins the nomination. It’s that simple and the people have a voice. George Bush’s vote counts just the same as the creepy guy who stares at you while you eat dinner at a restaurant.
I read an article on the Internet that included how delegates play a role in the election besides voting for a candidate they endorse. The article, from the International Herald Tribune on February 10, stated that “In this supercharged atmosphere, the disputed delegate count is more than a statistical exercise - it can influence a candidate's ability to raise money, sway party leaders and get out the vote.” That seems highly unfair. People become manipulated by the numbers. They see that Hillary is in the lead and they hop on the bandwagon.
That’s not to mention super delegates, who consist of leaders of Congress and powerful political figures who may make or break one of the Democratic candidates this year. These super delegates confuse the situation even further. I’m told that these power figures will choose who they want to see win the nomination with no average Jane or Joe in mind. How does that make sense?
Let’s throw out the numbers, throw out the delegates, tell the super delegates to focus on the important issues inside the Beltway, and let the people live the American dream that we talk about by chooing the next leader from the ground up. Now that makes sense!
Jamie Gwynn '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment