Obama/Clinton the popular vote, can the system be changed?

Popular or not does not change a thing. Either one of them chosen would not spell instant relief from the woes that beset America. In order to see change Americans need to change themselves from within and look back to where they started and what made their country great so they will not lose the privileges of greatness.

Hi Yancha,

     I do think that the issue about popular vote does not really matter here.  I could just see the handwriting on the wall.  Obama is not going to make the nomination.  You know why?  He has already been damaged by the statement of his wife about being proud of America for the first time.  What knd of statement is that?  Does this reflect a  positive image of a potential FIRST LADY?  What about his dealings with his negative pastor?  America is not stupid to have someone like this to be in office.

People actually consider the potential First Lady in a choice of a PRESIDENT.  The FIRST LADY should exude a positive attitude to be the role model.  And with that statement, I'm sure even a lot of Democrats have been turned off by that except the Black voters of course because they are dying to see a Black man to be the President.  This country is ready for a Black man to be the President but it is not OBAMA.  Sorry to say that.

     Do you remember John Kerry?  He thought he was going to win the Presidency.  The one that ruined it for him was the image of his wife.  She did not project a good image of a FIRST LADY being poised, positive and being presentable.  Whether you believe it or not, a good President material is not enough here.  People consider the wife of the future President.

The "unfair" system you refer to is the fact that a (rather large) number of elected officials, party stalwarts of substantial influence, and some others have been designated to be "super delegates", though there is nothing "super" about them.  The votes of the so-called "super" delegates count just exactly as much as any other delegates.  However, as with any elected representative, all delegates are expected to use their best judgement to represent the electorate they are representing.  The fact that some were given their positions because they had showed strong commitment to a particular candidate, does not, in fact, obligate them to vote that way, as far as I know.  News commentators say, "it never happens" that delegates switch loyalties once chosen, but that is not strictly true.  Delegates who were apportioned according to the votes received by candidates who have since withdrawn from the race would be wasting everyone's time voting for the now-absent non-candidate.   Worse yet, but not choosing from the actual available choices, they might fail to show good judgement by allowing "the other" candidate (than the one which they would choose) to win before their real preference was expressed by their "real" vote at the convention. 

Now, it is "fair" that the Clinton campaign may convince super delegates to support her.  Yes. 

The "popular vote" among those choosing to vote in the Democratic primaries and caucuses is irrelevant to who will be the best candidate to win the office of president.  The super delegates were created (in 1982, I believe someone told me) to exercise "judgement" as to what would be best for "the party", and it does not matter how popular a candidate is WITHIN the Democratic party, since it takes more than just loyal party members to cast enough votes (in enough electoral college districts) to win the office of president.  It takes a candidate who can attract the approval of sufficient non-aligned (aka "independent") voters, or voters who might otherwise vote for a candidate from another party to make that candidate the winner in enough specific electoral districts to win the electoral college vote. 

Can we change the system?  Should we change the system of electoral college voting?  Perhaps.

Was it a great disappointment that Vice President Gore lost a small, but not insignificant portion of the more "liberal" votes to candidate Ralph Nader in the 2000 election?   It certainly was.  But was it "fair".  Yes, it was.  Was it in anyone's best interest for him to lose the election because of the people voting for Mr. Nader?  I don't think so.

Unlike some people, I don't think Senator Obama is unelectable, or in any way undesireable, but I don't know if he can get elected.  Senator Clinton has a lot of strong points, not the least of which is her alliance with her husband (through thick and thin, as we all know), but is she electable?  That remains to be seen too.

I am still hoping that we can see the "Dream Ticket" of a Clinton/Obama (or an Obama/Clinton) candidacy.  It may not be a realistic hope if the attitudes at the two campaigns do not change.  I feel almost hypocritical in wanting the candidates to consider the interests of the party over their own individual interest because I am usually one who says, forget the party, keep the needs of the people uppermost.  But in this instance, I think that getting a Democratic candidate into the White House, as well as enlarging the slim majority of Democrats in the Congress (both Houses) is the objective that both candidates need to keep in mind, because that IS in the BEST INTERESTS of the WHOLE COUNTRY!  In my opinion, at least.

 Love

Stafford "Doc" Williamson

Don't diet, just eat less.  See the http://undietlifestyle.winfotech.com

We need (1) proportional representation and (2) to eliminate the Electoral College.

1. Proportional representation means that if 65% of the state's voters vore for the Yellow Party, 65% of that state's representatives in Congress will belong to the yellow party. That's the only way to do away with gerrymandering, which has placed most seats in Congress firmly in the hands of one party or the other. Also proportional representation will make it easy for new parties to aries and challenge the old ones. That way when you vote for a third candidate you're not wasting your vote.

 2. The Electoral College is a mechanism whereby the candidate the wins a state usually gets all the electoral votes from that state. This way if you vote for the Democratic candidate in a heavily Repugnican state you're wasting your vote, and the same if you vote for a Repugnican candidate in a heavily Democratic state. If we get rid of the Electoral College, the candidate who wins the  popular vote becomes president.