Topsy-turvy world of American democracy!

The American system of primaries and caucuses is not necessarily based on a level playing field. Far from it. It is often open to manipulation, armtwisting, and, in places, downright fraud. Americans seem to take all this in their stride. They've grown up with pork-barrel politics and smoke-filled deal-making rooms. How much longer are they prepared to put up with it?

Sean Wilentz, writing on salon.com, poses this theory - "Why Hillary Clinton should be winning". Apparently, under a winner-take-all primary system, Hillary Clinton would have a wide lead over Barack Obama -- and enough delegates to clinch the nomination by June. The Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257. Wilentz goes on to show how unfair this system is.

I think much of this goes back to the War of Independence or the Revolutionary War, as it is called in America. The Separatists under George Washington won. In fact they had about two-thirds of the colonialist support. The losing third, the American Loyalists (with the British Army), were summarily told to clear off to Canada or leave for Britain, which is what most did. Some stayed on, but diluted their allegiances somewhat.

The two-thirds that made up those that would help create the United States were not, however, deemed sufficiently capable of exercising democratic opinion outright. Many of the signatories to the Constitution were disdainful of open democracy. They favoured a far more controlled system of representation. We have the odd legacy from them of the President of the United States being actually elected by the Electoral College. The thought behind the deed here was that the President and Vice-President were seen as executives of a federation, so a popular vote decision would be inappropriate. It is entirely possible for the winner in the popular vote to obtain fewer Electoral College votes. This is something that crossed both Al Gore's mind as well as his opponent George W. Bush, as Gore won the popular vote.

I've had many a conversation with American friends about the methods used in American democracy. Most are resigned to the fact that things will probably never change. I would hope for their sakes that it does. That's why I find it refreshing that Ron Paul has allowed his name to go forward, and that many Americans see this as the start to real change.