My opinion of American politics just keeps on being reinforced. Most recently by two examples of what I would call absurd reactions to factual events.

Both Florida and Michigan violated Democratic National Committee rules by holding their primaries earlier than was allowed. As a result, these two states have had their delegates stripped from national results. Now, however, people are complaining because the race between Obama and Clinton may be too close to call if neither Florida nor Michigan are counted.

What’s the answer? That’s something for the DNC to decide. But, if I’m to give my personal opinion, whatever answer is arrived at must not include counting anybody in either of these two states. There should be no second primary, there should be no counting of partial results, and there should be no “proportional” or 50 / 50 representation as have been variously proposed. If you violate a rule, and are then penalized, you don’t get a “redo” just because of other events that happen.

If the DNC wants to change its by-laws to say that any state that violates its rules gets no representation – unless by having this happen something inconvenient happens down the road, in which case something else happens – that’s fine. But they haven’t done that yet. Also, assuming certain assumptions about regulatory boards and by-laws, any by-law change at this point could not apply to the 2008 primaries and election, only those held in future years. (I may be wrong about the timing here, and it may actually be possible for a by-law change to take effect for this election, but I’d be surprised.)

In short, get over it, live with it, and come up with another solution. I would almost find it fitting if, because of this screw up, there was no viable Democratic nominee at all. While this would not be my personal choice in terms of who I’d like to see as the next American President, it does make some kind of logical sense to me.

The other thing that really bugs me is the reaction to Geraldine Ferraro’s statements about race and the number of votes given to each candidate. The word “racism” is meant to denote an irrational negative reaction against somebody, or some group of people, based on ethnic origin. Ferraro was not saying anything negative about anybody, she was simply making a statement of fact. The statistics clearly show that the majority of black voters have been voting for Obama. Similarly, Clinton has captured a majority of female voters. Statistics cannot be racist – or sexist.

While it’s certainly possible that there is some explanation for Obama getting the majority of black votes, and Clinton getting the majority of female votes, aside from the fact of their race and gender – it’s far from likely. In the absence of any kind of confirmed alternate hypothesis, the most likely reason for the votes that they’re getting has to be seen as due to their race and their gender. If the two candidates were the same race and gender, the voter demographics would be considerably different than they are right now – and votes would come down purely to a consideration of policy and personality.

But, given that they are not of the same race or gender, I see no reason why Ferraro’s statement should have caused anybody to react to her in a negative way. Anybody looking at the facts reasonably should be able to see that, statistically speaking and everything being equal, Obama would not be getting the same number of votes if he weren’t black – nor would Clinton be getting the same number of votes if she were not a woman. (As a sad commentary on the way people react to such things, however, I do understand the political reasons behind Ferraro having to leave the Clinton campaign. I don’t think that she was wrong in what she said – I just think that she was politically unwise in saying it.)

I have no doubt if there were a presidential candidate in a wheelchair that they would be garnering the majority of votes from people also in wheelchairs or otherwise handicapped. While it’s nice to think that “justice is blind”, and people vote purely on policy and personality, this is not the case. It’s just not human nature to completely ignore things like this. Look at nationalism. Does it really make sense that, only because of my geographical location, I should be prouder of Canada than any other country? Surely, that should be based on things that the country does better than others – not just on the fact that I happen to live here. The same goes for sports. Are the Maple Leafs really the best hockey team, and the team I should be rooting for, just because I happen to live closer to Toronto than to any other city? No. But that’s how things work. It’s human nature and it has to be acknowledged.