Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
A fellow political scientist?! *giddy*
|
It's my degree
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
You must admit though, that Hillary is the party choice within the present context "ie - it not being the final choice"
My contention is that when a decision is brken up into pieces, this damages the quality of the result. I believe:
The party should make one decision of who is the candidate - through the membership of the parliamentary party or a combination of.
The people then should have a straight, and clear, choice.
Of course there is an anti-Hillary mob, as there is an anti-Bush mob. These people dont decide the election, the middle ground do.
|
I'm a fan of the founding fathers' intention to minimize party control in Democracy, though I do think parties have their purpose of helping convey a candidate's general message. If it weren't so upsetting, I'd find it rather amusing that the
Democratic party has the less democratic process of choosing a presidential candidate (superdelegates). That said, I also recognize that right now there is too much fluff in the campaigning of individuals. That's just as much a cultural problem as it is a political one though, what with our celebrity obsession and so forth.
As for the anti-Hillary mob, I think you underestimate the power of "getting out the vote." In a reasonably close election or in one where both sides are somewhat ambivalent, the independents definitely hold the most sway. But if one side can get their base fired up and the other one can't (which is what I think a Hillary candidacy would do, and also part of what happened in 2004), then the anti- voters can have significant power.