It's hard to believe now, Susanna, but at ONE time it actually worked pretty well...both parties tended to lean towards the center in the nominating process...ironically, what changed that was a move that most supposed would make the Party Primary selection process more democratic...the Convention delegates for each party USED to be selected by a caucus of party leaders within each State, who then went to the Convention. If no candidate had a majority the decision was eventually made in "smoke-filled back rooms". These were selections were generally very pragmatic...hence, they leaned towards the center. However, the folks involved in the selection process generally excluded women and people of color...it seemed a good idea to change that to a popular vote contest for the primary...and perhaps THAT is where a proportional system should have been installed to replace the "Winner-take-all" rule. What has happened is the most extreme elements of each party, because they are generally more dedicated and vociferous have taken control of these processes...leading to absurd selections like you-know-who, among others. I don't really know...but I DO know that the current "Winner-take-all" rule in State Primaries has led us to folks like the current "Mr. You-Know-Who' (I can barely utter his name without going apoplectic these days) getting the nomination of a major party...and that's a freaking crime...I don't know who or where most of the blame lies, you would have to parcel it out between the parties themselves, the media - for their "horse race" type of campaign reporting, and, of course, the public, for putting up with it and then making dismal choices...in particular responding to "fear" arguments...especially those "fear" arguments of those who failed to pay attention and do their jobs in the first place...but that last part is just my own POV...as someone who HAS been paying attention to the world's events since I was about 11. Point of reference, that goes back to John F. Kennedy...OH...yeah...5's for you here ~ ~ ~

When we are up against Al Qaeda I'll pick 'mean' over 'flakey' any day. ;-)

Having recently been involved in an organizational vote that used a form of relative voting, I certainly see the point of moving away from "winner takes all" to get a broader representation of what the electorate really wants. The complication is the primary process, which winnows out good people for the wrong reasons and then we're left with...Bush and Kerry.

There is much to criticize about all American political parties, and your mean/flaky verse does a good job of poking fun at the stereotypes. But countries that do not have "winner take all" election allocations seem to end up with some very odd coalitions that, I don't think, are more effective than ours. Good parody, but I had a problem with the pacing because, while America and California can both be pronounced with 4 syllables, they are stressed differently.

Meriadoc, that would be exactly my problem as well - how to be tough to warmongers, criminals and terrorists, and compassionate to social issues, like education, employment and health care? If I am to be asked, this is one of the bottlenecks of the "winner-takes-it-all" system. Since human beings seldom are black-and-white while parties often are, the winner-takes-it-all leaves too often good candidates of the losing side stranded. Now as it seems the Flaky Party has won, will it mean a signal for al-Qaida to attack?

Susanna, it is the hope here, at least from me, that BOTH parties act responsibly now. Personally, I'm having a hard time picturing the Republicans doing that, what with the way they have comported themselves to date. I think the Democrats would be fools (time will tell on that) to take too extreme a position, but that doesn't mean they must be subservient to the White House, since the main reason they prevailed seems to have been the Voting Public's rejection of Mr. Bush's policies and other Republican malfeasance. This was a group that really overplayed their hand...they had very, very slim majorities, but in every branch, and they really tried to play it to the hilt. I don't think it's healthy for a 51% to try to lord over the 49% (not exact percentages, just a way of addressing it). With that in mind the Dems may not be all that ready to "make nice" just right now. "Pay-back" could be an operative word, and as long as it doesn't infringe on important issues I think it's more than a little appropriate. Expect some of the Office location assignments on Capitol Hill to be drastically changed, for one thing...

Eve of November 2016 dreaded election. ISO a parody, which is theme for a music circle tonite (any topic), and I'd procrastinated, so this is PERFECT. A tune I know well, and easy chords. Thanks.