That is the title of a David Broder column today.
Here is the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43181-2003Dec30.html
Broder gives us food for thought. The process was broken in 1968. It still is. The grass roots are no closer to power than before. Though they should matter, the votes that will be cast have become irrelevant. The one with the most money wins. Polling takes the place of voting. It happens in both parties, too.
I, for one am troubled by all this. Who really chooses the nominees?
The whole column is worth reading. Though Broder is often off the mark, he has put his finger on something important. He concludes as follows:
Most Americans have a limited appetite for politics. When the candidates are forced to do most of their campaigning for the nomination in the pre-presidential year, they quickly find that the only attentive audience members are activists, donors, pollsters and the political reporters. Those four groups -- none of them remotely representative of the grass roots -- have acquired the power to say who is "expected" to win -- and who usually does win.
If polling and punditry were less eager to anoint, every poll would provide the option of answering, "I don't think I know enough yet to make a choice among these candidates." That answer would top every national poll.
This rush to judgment devalues the role of the party leaders and elected officials and still fails to achieve the reformers' populist goals. It comes close to being the worst way possible to pick a president.
Sure, if your candidate wins, who cares? But perhaps the present system does give us the best candidates. Perhaps there should be a better way. There's a reason why some of us call to let the voters decide. Maybe the call will grow louder in the future, until something is done to remedy the problem. The people deserve a real opportunity to make the choices that belong to them.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated.