I haven't written yet about the US elections but an interesting article appeared on the US website Salon.com today. It argued that Obama's victories in the primaries have been pretty hollow because under the Democrat system, votes from each state in a primary are awarded on a proportional basis rather than a winner takes all basis. In a popular vote winner-takes all system Clinton would be ahead in the number of delegates, while Obama would be behind. The fact that the Democrats have decided on a proportional basis for each state actually helps Obama.
This only matters because in the General Election each state operates on a winner takes all basis only. Therefore, the implication is that Hillary is actually doing pretty well and it is just the system that is letting her down.
Normally, I would not even consider this an argument worthy of my attention being such an Obama acolyte. But the article was written by Sean Wilentz - a brilliant US historian, my favourite in fact, who has written extensively on President Jackson and early 19th Century American democracy.
When it comes to democracy, Wilentz knows if something is wrong in the state of Denmark - so I am intrigued that he has looked into this. It is certainly worth reading for yourself. Check it out here.
It has not changed my opinion though of Obama. He should still get the nomination.