Posted by
Bill Crawford on Saturday, June 07, 2008 11:24:07 PM
Until I realized the depths to whch moral relativism could take a thinking being, I would never have understood how anyone could support the concept of superdelegates and simultaneously rail against the Electoral College.
I understand the Electoral College has a partial basis in birth as a control of the election process by the aristocracy. There is a larger purpose to it, though. It prevents a national candidate from trying to win an election by parking their time and money in the twelve largest cities in the country. It forces one to campaign in the rural areas, too. It makes all the voters count for something.
I can understand how Democrats might feel they got hosed in 2000. Every election we have ever had where the loser had the greater popular vote engendered those feelings.
What I don't understand is how one can propose an abolition of the Electoral College while supporting a party that ponies up a series of party officials who get to have candidates buy them lunch and pick up their dry cleaning so when they "vote their conscience" (Ted Kennedy's concept of the whole thing), the party aristocracy can flip the proverbial bird at the proletariat primary voters at will.
This is the world of moral relativism. There is no need for consistency. Today's logic and yesterday's logic need not be reconciled. It's what is in the heart that counts.
Nuts.