Demanding a recount

And now, one of my favorite election stories ... one that I don't think I've told in this space before:

My mother and father were registered members of the Conservative Party in New York when they lived in suburban Buffalo before moving. This was a rather exclusive club, since most people are registered members of the two major parties. In this particular year, which was sometime in the Eighties, there was a primary within the Conservative Party for a town office.

One day of two before the primary, the doorbell rang. Mom answered the door, and there was a man at the doorstep. He was running for that town office in the primary, and sought her support. Mom talked to him briefly, took his literature and closed the door.

That's all quite typical. The primary came and went, and then something atypical happened.

The doorbell of our house rang three days later. That same man who was campaigning earlier in the week was back.

Mom was rather startled to see him when she opened the door. She mumbled a "Can I help you?" The candidate apologized for returning, but had a question for her.

"Did you vote for me in the primary?" he asked.

"Um, no," Mom answered.

"OK. There seems to have been something odd about the returns, and I've been checking on it."

"Well, how many votes did you get?"

"None."

"Oh ... I'm sorry."

And off the candidate went to the next house, in futile search of someone, anyone who claimed to vote for him.

Ah, politics. A humbling business.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.

Stop the insanity

Let me just review the Presidential selection process briefly, just to make sure I have this right.

A bunch of candidates spend about a year campaigning and raising money. The campaigning is mostly done in Iowa and New Hampshire, and fund-raising is done anywhere there is a hand to shake and some shrimp to eat.

Then the business of selecting delegates starts. Well, sort of. In Iowa, voters aren't selecting delegates, they are caucusing in order to pick delegates. Not many people understand the system, but somehow winners and losers are determined -- mostly on a basis of expectations. In New Hampshire, you can vote for anyone you want regardless of party affiliation. So if you are a Democrat who is scared stiff that Rudy Giuliani is the only Republican who can stop a Democratic win (and that's not a ridiculous thought), then you'll sprint to the voting booth and become an instant Republican.

And when we are done with Iowa and New Hampshire, we have clear front-runners as well as candidates who can no longer raise money and head for the hills, leaving a few buttons (we should have more buttons in politics, don't you think?) and signs in their wake. In a couple of more weeks, a few more primaries will be held, and the winners of the two major nominations may be determined.

And it won't be February. Which means the voting population won't be asked to pay attention again until ... un ... Labor Day. Seven months later. In meantime, 90-plus percent of the electorate won't have much to say about the outcome.

Does this make any sense? Do people really wonder why voter turnout isn't too high?

I like the idea of retail campaigning that Iowa and New Hampshire bring to the table. It's charming to watch the candidates work the crowds one at a time on C-SPAN. The two states seem to take the responsibilities seriously, too. It would be a great way to start the campaign. Instead, it feels too often like the beginning of the end.

I'm not sure what might work here -- a "no delegate picked before March 1" rule or something might not be too practical -- but this system makes the electoral college look downright civilized.