Couldn't disagree with you more.

Pure democracy is not desirable. It is no more than mob rule. It's why there are so many undemocratic elements built into our political system.

The current system is broken. The way things are, I would prefer that the parties select superdelegates exclusively--knowledgeable and experienced people all--and let them decide, in their smoke-filled rooms, who's best for us. We'd have a better chance of getting two qualified, experienced, moral, decent candidates.

Well, maybe not from the Democrats. But at least there'd be less pandering and money wasted on this disappointing dance.

This isn't the only way to fix this awful system, but it's one way.

I agree with Will Franklin that secret ballot primaries seem more fair than caucuses. A primary with the poles open all day long would appear to draw a more representative voter than caucuses held only at a specific time for 2 or 3 hours.

As for Hale's comment that "the parties select superdelegates exclusively--knowledgeable and experienced people all--and let them decide, in their smoke-filled rooms",it seems to me the only people who would be happy with this would be the supporters of the chosen candidate. Also this system would probably just move the fight to how the superdelegates are selected. Rather than knowledgeble and expereinced people, these super delegates are likely to be simply long term politians or long term politcal activists. (The same type of bonehead party leaders who thought was a good move to zero out Michigan and Florida voters.)

I think that it was fine for the national party organizations to ignore the results from states that thumbed their noses at the parties' express desires.

However, the main problem is that we've moved away from the ideal of democratic self-government--which was what our system was based on--and towards the ideal of democratic equality--which is a leftist and Communist ideal.

What I suggested above is not my preferred way to fix the system. I'd rather go for a system whose name escapes me at the moment, but it's named for one of the states.

Anyway, the first set of primaries are held in the smallest states and the various US territories, including DC. This allows candidates without name recognition or big warchests to build a following, if their message resonates. The stakes would be low, so a maximum number of candidates could be included.

The next set of primaries would be among the smaller of the mid-sized states. This is where you start to see both attrition and momentum, depending on how candidates are received.

Next are the larger of the mid-sized states. More money would be required, but those candidates who had done well (enough) in the early primaries would have built enough of a following to raise the required money. On the other hand, those whose campaigns had gone nowhere would drop out by this stage.

Last are the primaries of the biggest states. This is where the men are separated from the boys. Nominees might not be decided, but the top few would be. In all likelihood, there would be two to five strong candidates who could go all the way to the convention.

This system would be very American: at once undemocratic, in that it gives smaller states a say out of proportion to their population (just like the Senate), and supremely democratic, in that every state would have its say, unlike the current system in which post-Super Tuesday caucuses are irrelevant for the majority of candidates.

I must admit, Mr. Hale, that I find your reasoning appealing.