If attempts were made to impose the American democratic system on any other country, it would immediately result in cries of cruel and unusual punishment. Even political anoraks have trouble understanding it, much less explaining it.
Take Hillary Clinton's great victory in New Hampshire. The eventual candidate for the presidency is decided by votes from delegates. From New Hampshire, Clinton will get the votes of nine delegates. How many did Barack Obama get? Nine.
That's right, a dead heat. You don't really want to know why, but I am going to explain it to you anyway.
In Democratic primaries, anyone who gets more than a certain percentage of the vote gets a proportional share of the delegates. (The Republican primaries sometimes divide delegates proportionally and sometimes on a winner-takes-all basis. Florida does the latter, which is why Rudy Giuliani is aiming so much of his fire there.)
In New Hampshire, there are 22 delegates. Clinton got 39 per cent of the vote, which approximates to eight delegates. Obama received 37 per cent, which also approximates to eight delegates. Edwards scraped in with 17 per cent, which entitled him to three delegates. The three remaining delegates were divided among the three candidates. Hence, the dead heat in New Hampshire, which is one headline you almost certainly did not read.
Clinton did get 8,000 more votes and that is seized on as a great headline maker. The Comeback Kid's Wife is Comeback Kid II! It is all so much more readable than obscure tracts about delegate numbers. It also serves nicely to cover up the fact that no one really has a clue what is going on.
Mitt Romney is allegedly now yesterday's man. Yet he has the deepest pockets of any candidate, is the favourite of the Republican establishment, is militantly pro-business, has a family that would look great in the White House and is not going to scare any horses himself if he gets in.
John McCain beat the pants off George Bush in New Hampshire in 2000 and Al Gore beat Bill Bradley, albeit by a narrow margin. We all know how that turned out. None of us knows how this race will turn out.
The only certainty is that personality is a huge factor and that people's perception of each candidate's personality is going to change far more rapidly than it ever did in the past.
One soundbite or teardrop will be replayed 1,000 times, only to be replaced by the next such incident mere days later. One day Hillary is perceived as a tired old bag with a severe charisma deficit, the next she's a warm human being. But it won't last. The nature of media is that it thrives on novelty and soon Hillary the human won't be novel any more.
We moan all the time about personality politics here in Ireland and the complete failure to engage with policies. There are actually quite sensible reasons to go for personality over policies
Instinctively, human beings vote for those whom they trust and like or, in a pinch, distrust and dislike less than the other candidates. They do so because they reckon that someone at least marginally more trustworthy is more likely to implement policies. It gets a little more complicated when personality is not something enduring, but dependent on rapidly changing perceptions.
In the United States, personality politics, particularly at presidential level, has reached its apotheosis. A quick glance at the policies of the candidates, especially of the Democratic candidates, explains at least in part why.
There is very little to choose between Clinton and Obama on their policies. For example, both candidates score a perfect 100 per cent with Naral, the national pro-choice lobby. Both have voted consistently along pro-choice lines. Both voted against banning partial-birth abortion, technically known as intact dilation and extraction.
It was an abortion technique used after 16 weeks, but more commonly after 18 weeks of pregnancy. The procedure involved a foetus, usually still alive, being delivered feet first as far as the shoulders. A catheter is then inserted at the base of the skull. The brains are suctioned out and the skull collapses, making delivery of the head easier. The US Supreme Court recently upheld a ban on its use.
Obama does have the distinction of voting against an Illinois law that would have mandated medical attention for any child born alive after an abortion. It was a bill prompted in part by experiences like that of a nurse who discovered a baby with Down syndrome who had been left to die in a soiled utility room.
Obama explained that he could not vote for the Bill because if such foetuses were recognised as persons, abortion itself could be threatened. Ironically, a law was latter passed by the national Senate, unopposed even by Clinton, which was practically identical to the one proposed in Illinois but had a clause which stated that it could not be used as a precedent to overturn the right to abortion.
On policy issues, there is little to choose between Obama and Clinton, but neither can predictions be made using experience versus change. Clinton certainly had a ringside seat at history, but was not the clown in the ring, much less ringmaster.
For example, it will be news to Protestant and Catholic women in the North that it took Clinton to get them talking. On the other hand, Obama, for all his inexperience, managed to call the decision to go into Iraq for what it was - ill-advised and ill-thought out. Now he is also talking sense on it, saying that there are only bad or worse options, with the worst being to abandon the place with indecent haste.
For most of us on this side of the Atlantic, American politics provide great entertainment, yet the outcome is crucial in many ways. Bush has steadfastly blocked progress on climate change. With the exception of John McCain and a few favourable statements from Mike Huckabee, most Republicans seem set to continue that record. That means that we had better pray that, however fickle personality politics are in the US, someone who actually grasps the seriousness of climate change and who is prepared to make hard decisions, ends up in the White House.