2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I understand that systems are sometimes complex out of necessity, but I don't think I see that in this case. Why should the Democratic nominee for Oregon be anything other than the person who majority of registered Democrats want? For that matter, why should there not be a national primary election? We rely on it to choose the president in November, why not the nominees, too? Sure, Iowa and New Hampshire voters get a great close look, but if they were perfectly representative of America then they could be the only primaries there are. The more convoluted the system, the more detached the individual voter feels about it. It may sound simplistic, but "one voter, one vote" brings more benefits in voter-connection than it brings harm in the loss of political subtleties.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

It wasn't long ago that I thought there was no way the Republicans could possibly retain the White House. I never should have underestimated the Democrats. A Hillary Clinton crowned the Democratic nominee by a non-democratic process of back room wheeling-dealing and old political debts called in, or, better yet, with the help of a lawsuit involving votes from Florida, could definitely lose to John McCain. All the swing voters attracted to Obama because of the hope of moving beyond the Bush/Clinton decades will be all the more disgusted, myself included.

Superdelegates should have the courage and honesty to recognize that the system that gives them this power represents so much of what is wrong with our elections. Those superdelegates who vote with the will of those who elected them represent the present; those who vote their "conscience" represent the past. And the future ought to be represented by those who declare that their part of the system is flawed, and refuse to vote at all.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context