Lately I've become aware of how frustrated many people are with the Presidential Primary Process.

In fact, a friend sent me a video about the very topic. The video is both funny and profane. I'm trying to figure out how to post it here as an entry.

The frustration I'm getting with this follows two basic thoughts. 

    1. Why is this process taking so long?
    2. Why can't the Democrats make up their mind?

This is almost like the frustration small children can feel waiting for Christmas morning.

I feel the process seems so long and drug out because of the extreme dissatisfaction of such a large percentage of Americans with their current leadership. In a culture that honors instantaneous change with a remote control and a variety of electronic entertainment devices, the desire to change the channel has been there since mid-2005 or earlier. The election in 2006 only allowed voters to split the screen and not change channels completely. For many voters, an attitude exists that a mistake was made in 2004, or even 2000, and a desire to correct that mistake has created a pent up frustration that is almost palpable.

Unfortunately, so long as the system we are using enables polarized politics these kinds of frustrations are likely to continue. If we as a people and a country are unable to overcome polarized politics with some moderate changes to attitudes and voting processes, then we may have to consider instituting some features of the Parliamentary form of government.

In the Parliamentary form, political parties vote as blocks and ruling majorities are formed by coalitions of parties. You do not vote for the Prime Minister. Instead, you vote for a party that identifies the individual from the party who will be installed as Prime Minister if that party wins the majority in the Parliament.

What this means to us by comparison is this. If the ruling party begins to behave in such a manner that the coalition is dissatisfied with its performance, then a "Crisis of Confidence" vote can be called for within the Parliament. If the ruling party cannot maintain its majority, then a national election takes place 60 days after the vote. The country then votes to, in essence, either validate the policies of the ruling party by putting an even stronger majority in the Parliament or to reject the policies of the ruling party by reducing the numbers of its members in the Parliament.

Knowing that the threat of such a procedure exists forces a ruling party to be inclusive and cooperative in its method of governing, rather than exclusive and combative. Perhaps elements of such a system might serve us well in this modern era. Events simply move too fast for a nation like ours to endure a leader who has lost the confidence of the electorate.

Consider what might have happened had we had such a mechanism in place at the time of the Clinton impeachment or in the Fall of 2006. Our history might have changed significantly.

My thoughts anyway. What are yours?