The misrepresentation of representation

The primaries this election cycle have helped illuminate some of the eclectic methods American Politics uses to pick candidates. Straw polls, caucuses, individual delegations and disqualified delegations are all being discussed and examined. Or rather, they are being criticized and argued. The “electoral college vs. one-man-one-vote” argument has been raging since the 2000 election almost without pause.

While every method has its die hard supporters and detractors, I find it perturbing that most ‘discussions’ are about the flaws in each method as opposed to what the goals of each method are, and why. Instead of hearing about the electoral college as a way to protect state rights, we only hear how it changed a presidential election in 2000. If the electoral college is so flawed, do we need to redraw Senate seats also? Instead of asking why the DNC disqualified Florida and Michigan delegates, we complain that Hillary will not get the delegation votes she now deserves.

We are so intent on injustice, we are forgetting to ask ‘why’. The reason ‘why’ is so important is because to fix a flexible problem (like American political methods) we need to know what we want and why the current system exists, not just what we do not like.