Scathing New York Times editorial today:
Clark seemed so immediately electable to so many Democrats that the day after he announced his candidacy, he shot up toward the top of the national polls. These voters are nothing if not principled, and their primary principle is that they should win. This, after all, is a party of ideas.
I don't think this is what the Founding Fathers intended.
Stephen says:
(Of course, if we went by everything the founding fathers intended, you wouldn't be allowed to vote, due to your gender; nor would I, due to my non-land-owning status.)
Maggie says:
I found this article amusing as well :-) Even so, I think the founding fathers cared more about having a system of checks and balances than whether President X was elected by 40 percent or 60 percent. We all know how fickle polls are, and how changeable opinions are. Besides, even in an ideal system of voting -- to vote is to attempt to predict the future which is impossible! mkt.
Laurabelle says:
Maggie and Stephen: you're both right, of course, but I think you take my point.
The Founding Fathers actually didn't trust the unwashed masses (which is probably smart of them, given my opinion of the numbers of Americans who seem to support Bush, although I have my gripes with the electoral system), so they did care about having the president elected by a majority (which majority is the issue!). Unfortunately I don't think the are working at the moment, as the White House, Capitol Hill, and the Supreme Court are all controlled by one party (and the other party is just standing around looking stupid).
That's changing though. I'm a Dean supporter, though I'll vote for Kerry if he gets the Democratic nomination. But the votes that will make a real difference are twenty-somethings like Jeff's politically apathetic friend who is registering to vote this year, simply so that he can vote against Bush. Congratulations, Shrubbie, you may have succeeded in mobilizing the younger generation!