390 days.
That's how long it's been since Barack Obama stood on the steps of the Old State Capitol building in Springfield, Illinois and announced his presidency.
It's been even longer for Hillary Clinton, who has campaigned for 412 days since announcing her intentions on running for the highest office in the country.
Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain all announced their hopes for the presidency well over a year ago. That may be the reason that two of those three have since dropped out.
The fact of the matter is this year's presidential election process has been boring. It's the equivalent of watching grass grow everyday for six hours. Not that I don't love politics and the bickering and infighting and speculation that McCain or Clinton was out of the race months ago. But for this campaign to have lasted over 480 days by the time the conventions roll around, that's absurd.
The problem is the process. We've got this long drawn out primary and caucus garbage that gets us no where but to bed earlier each night. It lasts from early January until June a total of six months. And there was a total of 10 months of campaigning before the voting even started.
The democrats also utilize the dumbest process for electing a candidate. Their formula seems like it was set up to mold a long campaign. Here's the gist of it.
Each state holds a primary or caucus, just like every other state. The difference comes with how the delegates are tallied up.
On the democratic side the DNC decided that each state will do it the same way. Some delegates are rewarded based upon the percentage of the total vote won. For example, if Hillary Clinton won 51% of the vote and Barack Obama won 47% of the vote, Clinton would grab 51% of the delegates. But that's only the beginning.
Delegates are also rewarded based upon the results from each voting district. Each district is distributed a certain amount of delegates (usually three) and they are split up depending on the votes from each district.
Do you see why this is the dumbest process ever?
With this nominating procedure you're left with situations such as Texas, where Hillary Clinton won the overall popular vote, but it looks as if she'll draw with Obama on delegates if not fall short.
So the people that voted for Clinton will be represented at the convention with more Obama delegates. Does that make any sense?
To make it even worse democratic elites thought they should get two votes. So they invented super delegates.
Super delegates are extra special people in the democratic party that are so awesome that they get to vote twice. Well, not literally.
They're Americans so they can vote in their state's primary or caucus, but remember they're also kick ass democrats, so they can endorse any candidate they choose and that candidate picks up another delegate.
Power to the people! Or should I say, power to the DNC elite!
This sucking away of popular sovereignty on behalf of the left has put them in a little bit of a bind.
As of right now neither Obama or Clinton are anywhere near enough delegates to secure the nomination. And if the states continue to split, there's likely not going to be a clear nominee come convention time. But wait! There's a solution. Those flippin' sweet voters called super delegates. They'll sweep in and decide the nominee.
The problem? This country isn't based off of Washington bureaucrats that the DNC feels compelled to knight superior to the average man. It's based off of the American people, and they should decide the nominee.
So how can we do it right? Is there a process out there that would easily pick a nominee with no doubt in anyone's mind. The answer is yes. And we happen to execute the process the first Tuesday of every November.
Our primary voting needs to run just like our general election, minus the electoral college. That means every single state in the union votes for their party's nominee on the same day. We get rid of the delegates and who ever wins the largest percent of American's is the winner. Game, set, match.
We can still have time to evaluate each candidate. We can hold more debates, that actually engage the audience and aren't censored by the media. The candidates can have more rallies and the citizens of this country can ask more questions. But there's no sense in spreading out the votes across six months when most people have their mind made up after two.
Not to mention that a candidate can gain "momentum" and win states that fall later on the calendar. I'm sorry but last I checked this wasn't a game of basketball, this was electing the leader of the free world. A candidate shouldn't have to pick up momentum as strategy, that person should be elected based on their merits and their beliefs, not because they won Iowa or Ohio.
If we do that we'll be able to cut the number of days the electing process takes in half. Because while it's been over 400 days since this darn thing started, there's still 292 days left.
Jacob Bodnar is the host and producer of the weekly conservative podcast, The Current Podcast. His shows and columns can be accessed at http://www.thecurrentpodcast.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment