News

"Is this any way for the world's greatest power to select its next leader?" Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Shribman asks in his Globe essay this week The way to the White House lies through a mysterious shambles

"A nation with nuclear weapons, with the most important currency on the globe, with military forces engaged in battles in two countries half a world away, with the power to shape the culture and tastes of people in lands whose existence it hardly acknowledges, chooses its president in a political process less sophisticated and less logical than that employed to choose the queen of the Carnaval de Québec in the 1950s.

"Super Tuesday's farrago of primaries and caucuses . . . put the entire process — the frantic campaigning, the fevered charges and counter-charges, the riot of different rules for different states and different parties — on naked display.

"It was not pretty. It wasn't even efficient.

"Several years ago I covered a Canadian election, making stops with party leaders in Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, and the whole thing was so crisp, so streamlined, so businesslike — most of all, so brief — that I thought that surely I was missing something.

"Where was the chaos? Where was the confusion? Where was the frantic exhaustion? Where was the patchwork of some places that voted by proportional representation, some by a winner-take-all scheme and still others in a first-past-the-post system by legislative district?

"The clarity of it all — the utter simplicity of it — on the northern side of the 49th parallel seemed to me a beautiful thing to behold. Or at least reasonably easy to understand."

Whether you agree or not, it's a provocative thesis.

That's why we're glad Mr. Shribman was online to take your questions on his argument and on the U.S. presidential election.

Your questions and Mr. Shribman's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

Mr. Shribman, a former Boston Globe assistant managing editor, columnist and Washington bureau chief, took over as executive editor of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2003.

He was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for journalism in 1995 for his coverage of Washington and the American political scene.

Sasha Nagy, globeandmail.com: Dear David: Thanks for taking time out of your exhaustive election campaign coverage to answer reader questions. Your comparison of the Canadian and U.S. electoral process praised the relative simplicity of the Canadian system in your essay that appeared in the Globe on Saturday.

I would argue that much of the mudslinging that is evident in the U.S. system still goes on in equal measure in the Canadian political leadership conventions, perhaps behind the scenes. Do you think that the enourmous pressure the leaders endure through this process makes them better once they emerge victorious. Is it not better to see if they can handle the pressure now (not to mention the slings and arrows), rather than later, after they are in office?

David Shribman: There are two competing theories here. One is that it is best to sail to the nomination, get your sea legs (to continue this nautical metaphor) and then become commander of the ship of state. The other theory is that there are storms and squalls out there, both as candidate and as president, and it is better to determine just how seaworthy a candidate is before giving him the rudder. I don't know the answer. Some American candidates have been really bloodied in a campaign and emerge stronger for it (Bill Clinton is a good example). Others are hurt so badly by the primary campaign that they never recover (Gerald R. Ford, wounded by Ronald Reagan in 1976, is a good example; he eventually lost to Jimmy Carter). I would come down on the side of saying that a little bit of tumultuous weather gives the public a view of how a candidate can navigate in a storm. Too much sinks him. Or, perhaps in this case, her.

Dr Demento from Canada writes: Mr. Shribman: Have you noticed any dissent among Americans from states that hold their primaries late in the process? It seems to me that they would feel the process was somewhat unfair, seeing as Americans who live in Iowa and New Hampshire can choose from the complete list of candidates, some of whom will have dropped out of the race before, say the Texas primary.

David Shribman: Yes, and yes again. There are inherent unfairnesses here, of course. They come in many dimensions, as you have identified. If I lived in Texas -- which I am pleased to say I do not -- I would be upset that my palette of candidates was far more limited than if I lived in New Hampshire. This has caused a lot of squabbling, some of it political, some legal. Many big states have tried to muscle in, to appear early in the process. It is a New Hampshire law that its primary must be first. It is hard to manoeuvre around that.

Michael Surkan from United States writes: I think Messr Shribman is comparing apples and oranges. If he wants to look at how the U.S. system of selecting presidential candidates works compared to Canada, then he needs to look at the conventions the Canadian parties hold to choose their leaders vs. the U.S. primary/caucus process.

Canada's major political parties are notorious for scandals and brawls in their conventions, with stories of candidates packing the conventions with dubious new members, denying party membership forms to particular areas regions, etc. In many respects the primary/caucus system the major U.S. parties have for selecting their leaders is very refreshing, allowing individual citizens to have a say. In Canada, by contrast, the party insiders and activists have all the control determining the future leaders.

To keep this all in perspective, let's not forget that there is no law in the U.S. that forces parties to have primaries at all, these are merely mechanisms the major U.S. parties have chosen to pick their candidates. Further, there is nothing from stopping ANY candidate from putting themselves forward as an actual presidential candidate even without party backing (remember Ross Perot?).

David Shribman: I cannot disagree with anything Mr. Surkan says. He is right in every respect, particularly the notion, often forgotten in the U.S., that primaries and caucuses are the prerogative of the parties.

bildolcas West from Kelowna, B.C. writes: As imperfect as you state, would you not say that the USA way of selecting a candidate for president is better than the Canadian way of selecting a prime minister? The Canadian way has very few delegates of a party representing their special interest groups selecting a leader and candidate for prime minister. In the USA, the citizens appear to have a say in who their national leader will be.

David Shribman: Sure, American citizens do have a say in identifying the nominees for the two major parties for president. But just don't think it is purely democratic down here. It is not.

Kathleen Degelder from Aberdeen, USA writes: Hello, I am curious. Is it true that Obama and Clinton are against free trade? If so, what does that do to our trade with Canada? Are the Democrats protectionist? If so does that impede fair trade practices? Canada also has government subsidies in forestry.

David Shribman: Phrases like "protectionist" are hard to pin down, and I avoid them. Generally, the one-time Democratic devotion to free trade has eroded, and eroded substantially in recent years. Canadian subsidies on forest products are well known here, though not well understood. In fact, in 20 years I have never met anyone who could explain it to me. And as helpful as you might want to be, don't try. I'll never figure it out.

Virginia Gill from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario writes: What exactly is the Electoral College? Who selects them and what do they do during mid-election years? Thank you.

David Shribman: The Electoral College offers no degrees nor courses, holds no parties, has no football games and best of all has no alumni dues. It is a creature of the Constitution that basically says that there is no popular election of the president but that the president is elected by individual states acting individually, generally in a winner-take-all way. In other words, if a candidate wins California, he gets all of California's electoral votes. That makes California more valuable a prize than, say, Vermont. Generally each state has electoral votes amounting to the combined number of members of the House plus members of the Senate. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win. The Electoral College has no role in midterm elections.

Andrew Chong from Toronto writes: I had thought that privacy in voting was sacrosanct. However, with the caucus system, the voting process is public. This could lead to intimidation and bribery, especially in states like Nevada, where the unions support candidates, and workers caucus in workplace-related locations and times. Why are caucuses used, both historically and currently?

David Shribman: Caucuses do have the attributes that you identify. There is the possibility of intimidation. But in states like Iowa, there's another feature that is even more bizarre. If a candidate's support doesn't amount to 15 per cent of the total of the individual caucus, then that candidate's supporters have to vote for someone whose support does reach the 15 per cent threshhold. As for the history of the caucuses, I am afraid I don't know. Or I forgot. Maybe the latter.

David Parton from Victoria, B.C. writes: In Canada,about half the time the prime minister has been selected in the back rooms of the liberal party, such as Paul Martin, Trudeau, sealed by a convention and then set about ruling Canada without any election at all, till it was convenient for them.The American process seems relativly transparent compared with this. They also have these really neat confirmation hearings for cabinet members, judges etc, while in Canada, everyone from Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to the local dogcatcher is appointed without any public input whatsoever.

David Shribman: This isn't really a question, but who could fail to be charmed by a note calling confirmation hearings "really neat?" Some are really neat, some are vicious, but I agree with you: They are revealing. Very revealing. We have chosen presidential nominees in back rooms, by the way. Check out the history of the 1920 Republican National Convention. The delegates couldn't come to a conclusion. So the bigwigs repaired to a "smoke-filled room" in the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago. I am pretty sure of my facts here -- one of the disadvantages of the speed of the Internet is that it requires speed with an answer, so I haven't checked this. Anyhow, the grandees in the Blackstone chose Warren G. Harding, not our greatest president. But it also lent to us a wonderful phrase: smoke-filled room. Do I have to apologize to someone from Victoria who might be offended that there could still be a smoke-filled room?

Sasha Nagy writes: David: Looking at this election, what results have surprised you the most? Is it the fact that John McCain has emerged as the Republican front-runner? Is Obama performing better than you had originally thought? Thoughts?

David Shribman: I don't give predictions, but sometimes I am surprised. (The Red Sox won a World Series, after all, and then they won another one!) I will say that a lot of smart people told me six months ago that McCain was a dead man walking. Well, he's walking right to the rostrum of the Republican National Convention to give his acceptance speech. I was not surprised by the emergence of Obama, having seen him in New Hampshire in May. I was not surprised that Hillary Clinton ran a disciplined and, so far, pretty successful campaign; she is a determined, smart person not accustomed to failure. Let me put it this way: If you were a member of the Wellesley College Class of 1969, would you have been surprised that less than 40 years later, Hillary Rodham would be one of the two leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination? I bet you would have taken that bet.

Sasha Nagy, globeandmail.com: Thanks again for your time. In closing, could you offer your thoughts on what we can expect in the ensuing months. Perhaps a brief summation of the process to come. And if we get down to the final days and the Democrats are in a dead heat with Clinton and Obama, what do you think will tilt that scales?

David Shribman: I read something in The Wall Street Journal the other day that said no more surprises were expected in American politics. Of course not. Surprises are not expected. But I expect a surprise. I have no idea what it will be (which is why it will be a surprise) but I can tell you that the U.S. presidential campaign will not blithely stroll along the path to the Nov. 4 election without something interesting happening. (Which is why you should check in here and at our web site, www.post-gazette.com , with amazing frequency.)

The process to come: The Republican nomination isn't clinched yet by Sen. McCain. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas is still in there, fighting, battling, and winning contests. Many people expect that to wrap up soon. It may well do so.

The Democrats are a different matter. Sens. Obama and Clinton are very close in delegates. Nobody really wants this contest to be unresolved when the convention begins in late summer. The fight will go to Texas and Ohio and then here to Pennsylvania. Very likely one of the two will emerge as a clear favourite. If not, they will haggle over "superdelegates" -- party bigwigs who are not pledged to any candidate. Eventually there will be a nominee. Anyone who tells you on Feb. 11th that he or she knows who it is going to be and how it will happen is lying to you, or belongs in a program of some sort.