Ahh, sweet democracy

Donald Trump is boiling over more than usual from the frustration of watching past victories being eroded by curious math formulas that seem to deny the validity of voter preference. Bernie Sanders draws huge, enthusiastic crowds but would have to achieve nearly 65 percent in electoral victories to even close the gap on Hillary Clinton's lead. Our own Independent Record headlines "Democratic caucus evenly split" (Apr 14) when even a quick scan of the article reveals that Bernie Sanders won a double digit victory over Hillary Clinton state-wide (and by some 40 percent in Hot Springs County), but if Clinton had beaten Sanders by 1/10 of one percent, she'd have gotten 4 or 5 more delegates than Sanders.

How then can we have a democratic system of government if the electorate takes a second place to any other factor which may be convenient at the time to achieve the objectives of those who have ascended to positions of power within their respective party. That question goes to the very core of our political life at all levels - nation, state and local.

A good example of the seriousness of what I choose to call the tyranny of the minority is to suppose (use your imagination here) that if all 335 representatives voted 335-0 for baseball, motherhood and the American way, it would only take 41 votes in the Senate to defeat the measure. The final tab would go down in flames with a 394-41 majority. You're right. That would never happen to that extent, but we allow that principle to freeze our governments into inaction when faced with huge problems at all levels lest we seem to be unfair to those in the minority. Perhaps it arises from guilt about how the power of the majority has been misused against minority groups for spurious reasons not based on the validity of the majority position, but on the color, religion, gender, economic condition, age, etc. of an opposing group or organization.

If democracy stands for anything and on anything, it is the principle of one person/one vote, that all votes are equal, and the cause or person receiving the most votes wins. Where inequities exist and corruption rules, an informed citizenry must be involved to right wrongs and protect the powerless through a legal system and within the law, or by changing the law. Sometimes it's a tough battle, but one worth waging for the sake of any free people.

For your thought: We set aside one day for general elections on a national level. Why doesn't it make equal sense to supplant the myriad dates for primaries in individual states to have one day set aside no sooner than 45 days before the national nominating conventions to qualify those from which the conventions would select the various party's presidential candidate by voting for the top three, then the top two and ultimately the party's candidate for the presidency? Would that be any more ridiculous than what we have now?