What has not been mentioned is that delegates cast votes on the people's behalf. If the majority of the populace vote for Obama, then the delegate must vote for Obama to represent the votes. The question is how many delegates will vote for a specific candidate. Each state is different. In some states, the delegates are split based on the % of votes. If the public votes 50/50 then the delegates are split down the middle (as is the case with Obama/Clinton in some states). In others, whichever candidates gets the most votes gets ALL of the delegates for that state (which is the case almost entirely with the Republican party).

In addition to what others have said, another reason voting during the primaries is spread over months was to allow the candidates to campaign in as many states as possible back before air travel. They used to drive around from state to state or take the train and go from town to town and then to the next state to campaign. That is only during the primaries though which is basically where each party picks who will run for president to represent their party. When the primaries are over, either Clinton or Obama will represent the Democrat party and will run against the Republican nominee (probably McCain). Most of the populace votes Democrat or Republican so I doubt we will see any other parties really make inroads until that changes. The libertarian party is the closest to changing that (gaining members).





>Thanks for your answer Mike. That help understand the history behind the current process.
>
>We're still stuck with the monarchy system here. It's more of a protocol kind of thing than a real monarchy system, but it still amaze me to see that we are still under that anticated system in the 21st century. I hope that a politician will someday have the guts of getting us rid of that.
>
>>The answer to part of your question is the U.S. is not a direct democracy, it is a democratic republic. That means we elect representatives rather than each of us voting directly. This goes back to the founding of the U.S. and the U.S. Constitution. It was, more than anything else, a compromise -- a compromise between states' rights and federal rights, and also between those who favored democracy in a pure form and those who wanted a system closer to the English monarchy.
>>
>>We use the word "democracy" loosely but there probably hasn't been a democracy in the true sense of the word since the ancient Greeks gathered on hillsides. And even then I bet women, slaves, etc. couldn't vote.
>>
>>I don't know this but suspect the drawn-out nature of our Presidential primaries was the result of smoke filled room politicking between states and other interest groups. Personally I don't mind it because many of us get the chance to see the candidates for a while before we are asked to choose. The flip side is the nominees are usually (not this year) chosen before primaries are held in many states. Those voters essentially only have a choice between two candidates, the nominees of the only two meaningful parties.
>>
>>I know I am not addressing your entire message. A college class could spend a semester on this topic.