Super Saturday Delegate Count

[Deepak]

It seems to me that the US political system is a classic example of why 'intelligent' design gets sub-optimal results more often than evolution. The US system was designed; the rest of the world uses whatever system survived millennia of revolution, civil war, and coups d' état, where nobody sat down and said "How do we ensure that the people have power?", but instead they asked "How do we stop the peasants from revolting again?". The latter approach is a LOT slower, but leads to a much more efficient result. Giving the citizens choices they don't want is not a recipe for success - unless you WANT fanatics and extremists running the place.

The occasional fist-fight wouldn't hurt either.

 

[dismal]

I think the trick would be to start a political party that chooses it's candidate in a reality TV show.

You have a series of choreographed challenges and one candidate is voted out each week.

The Iowa caucus is a dance-off.
The New Hampshire primary is a hot dog eating contest.
The South Carolina primary is a 80's sitcom trivia challenge.
etc, etc, etc
Wrap it up with a mano-a-mano bareknuckle fistfight in Vegas for the nomination.

The person that came through it all would be a national celebrity and be a cinch to win the national election.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think the trick would be to start a political party that chooses it's candidate in a reality TV show.

You have a series of choreographed challenges and one candidate is voted out each week.

The Iowa caucus is a dance-off.
The New Hampshire primary is a hot dog eating contest.
The South Carolina primary is a 80's sitcom trivia challenge.
etc, etc, etc
Wrap it up with a mano-a-mano bareknuckle fistfight in Vegas for the nomination.

The person that came through it all would be a national celebrity and be a cinch to win the national election.

For the finale all the losers should get to return anyway to take part in the fake wrestling contest.

 

[Derec]

The big difference there is one is an elected office whose manner of election is prescribed in the Constitution and the other is a private club that can pick its candidate however it wants.

Of course. That's why one involved a constitutional amendment while the other merely a change in party rules.
Yet there is definitely a similarity in non-binding elections giving way to binding ones.

You could start a political party and have the candidate selected by height or in a dance-off. Whatever you feel serves your party best.

Which is why Democrats introduced the nuclear option of Superdelegates after the 1972 McDoesn'tGovern debacle.

- - - Updated - - -

The Russians used to pick their rulers that way; and this pre-revolutionary tradition lives on in the west as the TV show 'Dancing with the Tsars'. I saw an episode once; Peter and Catherine were great; but Ivan was terrible.

Still better known people than the actual "stars" on Dancing with the Stars ...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think the trick would be to start a political party that chooses it's candidate in a reality TV show.

You have a series of choreographed challenges and one candidate is voted out each week.

The Iowa caucus is a dance-off.
The New Hampshire primary is a hot dog eating contest.
The South Carolina primary is a 80's sitcom trivia challenge.
etc, etc, etc
Wrap it up with a mano-a-mano bareknuckle fistfight in Vegas for the nomination.

The person that came through it all would be a national celebrity and be a cinch to win the national election.

Well, the Republicans are getting as close as you can to this.