Someone sent me an email commenting on a post. Comments are open here, so I conclude that the comment was not intended to be public. OK, but I can talk about the ideas in the email without breaking confidence. I'd prefer that comments be made public. There's little to fear. The only uncivil whacko that comments here is me. If you can send email, then you can post in comments.

The email quibbled with the idea that the voters of Michigan and Florida had control over the structure of their primaries, and so it could not be said that they must accept responsibility for the outcome. I replied that there were no voters anywhere at any time that had more control.

Every contest has rules. Quibbling with the rules after the contest has been held is disingenuous. The time for that is before the contest. That doesn't mean that I approve of the particular rules, and even if I did it is a certainty that many would not. That's how rules are.

Elections can be seen as experiments. When an experiment is conducted a researcher may discover that the experimental design had flaws and so didn't yield the expected results, didn't answer the intended question. It may have answered some other question, or simply given ambiguous results, and so a new experiment with a different design must be made. Lather, rinse, repeat. What is not allowed is tampering with the data, fudging the results. That's fraud, or at least malpractice.

We often proceed crab-wise to imagined destinations, sometimes arriving but more often simply staggering about drunkenly until we tire of it and leave the task to others, often youngsters not yet exhausted by the seeming futility of it all. Puttering in the garden seems inviting after long engagement with truth seeking.

There is no polity anywhere, and never has been, that is entirely satisfied with the structure of their democracy. When they win they deem the flaws to be minor, but when they lose they sometimes contemplate rebellion and neep about the validity of the results. This is bad faith. The proper response to a disappointing electoral result is to seek to improve the structure of the next election, and make trades in the off-season to improve the team.

This primary season, just like the last, has exposed the confusion and disarray of the Democratic party. They are not ready to govern. If the Republicans had not performed so badly we wouldn't even be discussing this. They have a more organized and effective party, but they can't put the puck in the net. We want an alternative, but can't find one. When the Democrats had a tryout - in congress - they showed themselves to be just as ineffective as the Republicans, and still disorganized.

We are graced with the sight of The Keystone Politicians, whacking one another with boards and stepping in pails of water, while failing to get the job done. In my view the take home insight is that this is how it is, how it has always been. We have improved information and communication technologies. Old media no longer filters the information, no longer shapes the news by selectively concealing and revealing the actions of politicians.

Now that we see how the sausage is made, we may wish to reduce consumption. It really makes no sense to empower these folks or trust them to handle our affairs. Subsidiarity seems more compelling when we take a close look at the authorities.