The Democratic Nomination: What's It Worth?
The Democratic Nomination: What's It Worth?
by Jean Carnahan
Everything has a value the
economists tell us. It you’re traveling
abroad these days you know that the Yankee dollar is not what it used to
be. And, stocks have not fared too well
either.
Imagine
my surprise when I was surfing the Internet and discovered that a few of my
previously published book are still selling at face value--and sometimes even more! For the life of me, I can’t figure out why .
. . I still have a carton or two in the basement, so supply is definitely not a
problem.
Speaking of things that gain or lose their value, have
you taken a look at the democratic nomination lately? I am reminded of the time I picked up a
crumpled lottery ticket out of the gutter.
I knew that it was the winning ticket, the chance of a life time. My heart fluttered with excitement. As it turned out, it was worthless. It had been cast aside by someone who dreamed
that it was the ticket to better days.
Sadly, I am having those same feelings about the
Democratic nomination. It seemed like
the winning ticket, but it has recently gotten lost in the political gutter and
if it remains there much longer it will be soiled beyond worth.
I keep hoping that a benevolent “referee” will step in and
stop the mayhem as they would a prizefight when the participants have become so
punch drunk it is inhumane to proceed.
It’s all so painful, especially watching that old guy with
the white hair sitting in the front row, eating popcorn, smirking, and enjoying
every minutes of the bloodletting sport.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer friendly version
I'm also curious to see what
Quote: "Why did Claire find
Quote: "Why did Claire find it necessary to dis Bill Clinton with her remark about leaving her daugher alone with him, after he raised a huge amount of money for her?"
Can you elaborate on this or provide a link? I hadn't heard this before.
Thanks.
Nevermind...found it
Oh my goodness...I just found a link with her speaking: http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/claire_mccaskill_keep_bill_clinton_away_from_my_daughter/
With Democratic elected officials like McCaskill, it is no wonder that the Democratic Party is in disarray. I find McCaskill's quote to be appalling. If people want to know who is "tearing apart the Democratic Party," they need to look no farther than Senator McCaskill (not Hillary Clinton who has done a tremendous job serving as a representative of the Democratic Party, both as Senator and First Lady). Why do these Obama-supporting Democrats have to engage in gutter politics and "eating their own"?
I respectfully disagree
I respectfully disagree with your belief that a nondemocratic solution (i.e., a benevolent “referee,” or a benevolent dictator, stepping in) will “save” the party. In an election which has seen record turnout and other forms of participation by the public—many of whom are new participants in politics—and in a system that has long trumpeted the importance of political involvement as a means to effective policy representation (taught in civics classrooms throughout America for example), a solution that strips citizens of their political voice simply cannot be the answer. To quote the Founders, your “cure is worse than the disease.”
The Democratic Party with its complex maze of rules should at least take partial blame for the situation. The purpose of the Democratic nomination elections in each state is to determine who reflects the preference of a majority of the Democratic Party. Thus, the DNC should consider the age-old adage KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid):
1. Complex allocation of delegates across districts within the state: I am going to use Texas as an example since it has one of the most complex systems for allocating delegates. In Texas, delegates are allocated by State Senate District (many other states use Congressional districts). The number of delegates from each Senate district varies based on Democratic turnout in the last two general elections (thus, South Texas Hispanic districts which are quite populous are penalized under this system because of the low turnout of Hispanics—not just in Texas but nation-wide—and a nontrivial amount of support for Bush). The delegates from each Senate District are assigned to candidates proportionally based on the percentages they receive on primary day. Districts receive between 2 and 8 delegates. One consequence of this allocation is the incentive for candidates to spend disproportionate time campaigning in districts with an odd number of delegates because the candidate can pick up a delegate in those cases, whereas in the other districts delegates generally have split evenly. How’s this for a simple solution: make every voters’ ballot count equally…if Candidate 1 gets 52% of the votes and Candidate 2 gets 48% of the votes, make the pledged delegates reflect these proportions. I am ok with proportional allocation rather than winner-take-all, but we should also realize that this tends to lead to longer, contested elections…
2. Superdelegate System: The superdelegate system is a plan put into place to keep the party control of the Democratic nomination process, giving leaders and party supporters greater say in whom the eventual nominee will be. It was never intended to reflect the popular vote; there is no “rule” in place telling superdelegates they must vote the “will of the people” and if there were, then there would be virtually no purpose for superdelegates (other than to make them feel included in the process at a greater level). Of course, many of the superdelegates now arguing that they should follow the “will of the people” came out early endorsing a candidate before the “will of the people” has been determined. The superdelegates are currently being heavily lobbied by both sides, threatened in some cases (esp. members of the Congressional Black Caucus), and offered great sums of money. It would not be a bad idea to get rid of the superdelegate system and simply use pledged delegates allocated proportionately based on popular vote.
3. Caucus system and “mixed” systems: If we truly want to foster participation by all Democrats regardless age, health, socioeconomic status, race, gender, etc., then we should abandon systems that require undue burden on citizens to participate. The caucus system is ill equip to deal with the level of turnout witnessed during this election. From my personal experience participating in a caucus this year, those in charge are not well-informed about the rules of the caucus; the caucus was very disorganized; and I still have no assurance that my vote was counted or what the outcome was in my particular precinct (I think these are valid concerns and should be addressed immediately).
4. The Michigan and Florida Debacle: A solution to this mess is still in progress, but it doesn't look like their votes will be counted...this is a problem that transcends the short-term issue of "fairness" to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
(5. Personally, I would also like to see entirely closed primaries in all states to avoid undue influence by individuals not affiliated with the Democratic Party. This is not the general election after all; of course I recognize there are electability arguments some make.)
American politics is messy because of our history of diversity; we Democrats have similar views about what our most pressing issues are but different views about how to arrive at solutions to the problems we face. The American public is decidedly conflicted on who they would like to see as the Democratic Party nominee, and how this election is decided (the process I think moreso than the outcome) will have important consequences for citizens’ trust in government, citizens’ perceptions about how much voice they have in their own governance, and ultimately, participation in future elections (as well as the benefits we perceive in becoming informed about government decisionmaking). For these reasons, I oppose a premature intervention in the Democratic nominating elections by a “benevolent” or unbiased referee, even if there were such a person.
Closed primaries?
"(5. Personally, I would also like to see entirely closed primaries in all states to avoid undue influence by individuals not affiliated with the Democratic Party. This is not the general election after all; of course I recognize there are electability arguments some make.)"
I find this statement a bit disingenuous, especially in a state like Missouri, where the majority of voters are neither registered Republicans nor Democrats. We're too liberal for the ultra conservative Republicans, and too conservative for the New York and California Democrats. To restrict primaries paid for by the state to only members of a party no doubt would cause a court challenge. Now, if the parties wanted to hold their own private elections, well, then the state and state money is out of it. In short, you are advocating disenfranchisement of the majority. What an American ideal!
IMO, the entire party system is archaic, and run by power-mongers. I'd rather see a non-partisan system, where the top two vote getters are then pitted against each other. Since that will not happen in my lifetime, I grudgingly go along with the current system, since there is no reasonable home for persons who are socially liberal, fiscally conservative and for a moderate amount of government oversight --neither big nor small government appeals to me. As such, I 'lean' Democrat, in the rich tradition of many Missouri or old-style "Southern Democrats", but will never follow lockstep with many of the national party's aims.
Your proposal would disenfranchise me by attempting to stuff me into a box where I do not fit. I don't fit in the Republican box, either. This way, with open primaries, I have some influence on the nominees, and that suits me just fine.
First, I think you are
First, I think you are misusing the term "disingenuous." I stated that it was my opinion and I gave my rationale...I do not think I engaged in trickery with the statement. Second, I think you are misunderstanding what closed and open primaries are. Closed primaries or caucuses are used in about 26 states/DC, including Pennsylvania. In a closed primary state, voters simply have to register with one party (before the election/voting--the deadline varies by state); it is not a very high bar to participate then; it just means that there is less likelihood of people just raiding primaries like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingleman have been encouraging Republicans to do. I don't think imposing another requirement is such a bad thing; Americans are notoriously lazy though, but perhaps we shouldn't be so complacent and make things overly easy for the slackers.
Quote: "We're too liberal for the ultra conservative Republicans, and too conservative for the New York and California Democrats. To restrict primaries paid for by the state to only members of a party no doubt would cause a court challenge."
This does not make sense. Independents could still participate if they like a candidate, but they would simply have to register for a party before the election. By doing so, you are not really saying that you agree with the national Democratic or Republican parties (per se). Further, there are party systems in each state and nationally--each is different so I am not getting your point about CA/NY Democrats and Republicans. ???
Closed primaries/caucuses are not unconstitutional. If that were the case, then we would not have 26 states with them. A basic resource to learn more: http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801 Remember that primaries are party activities; previously nominations were handled by the party bosses and no primaries were even in place. Primaries came about as a reform measure to include the public (party members) in the process. This is the way things are; I'm not too thrilled about the party system we currently have, but that is a completely different point you are trying to make.
I'm not misunderstanding anything...
I was not implying that closed primaries were unconstitutional-- only that, in Missouri, there likely would be a court challenge to a move to such a thing, simply because that's the way we are.
What would be the point of registering with a party before an election, if one does not agree with their position, but is instead wanting to vote for or against a candidate, based on that candidate him or herself? So the party could chop down trees, expend postage and burn up carbon/electric with solicitations? I used to give money to political parties (small amounts) before one had to 'register' to do so. Now I give no money at all -- I don't use 'convenience tracking envelopes' in church, either. If data is collected on a person, it will be used against them at some time. I'd prefer not to have that information be collected in the first place.
I can't say I have ever voted a straight party ticket in my life, so I could not, in good conscience, register as a party for primary purposes. Sometimes I vote third party, too. The assertion that a state party affiliation has no bearing on national party affiliation doesn't sound very convincing to me, especially in the realm of politics. As long as they don't muck it up before November, I'll be voting for a majority of Democratic candidates, not because they are Democrats, but because they, as candidates they have their heads screwed on the straightest. I won't vote for any candidate I think is taking orders from political bosses, and heck, that attitude goes right back to Truman.
best wishes,
TeresaJ
People like to feel their vote counts.
I hope a "referee" doesn't cut it short. If someone does, he will be telling voters in the remaining states that their choice has been taken from them because the party is afraid.
Is the current mud slinging bad? Yes, but not as bad as it will be in the general election. We might as well face up to it, find out all the negatives about both the candidates and prepare to fight back.
Is it possible that because Missouri is at the front of the process to choose a candidate that we don't feel the sting that would come from being given a ballot with only one candidate on it and told "This is the candidate. Like it or lump it."? Is it possible that others do and that is one of the reasons voter turn out is low? People like to feel their vote counts. If you felt your vote didn't count, would you take the time to go to the polls and stand in line?
That's not to say that I would want to see it changed to something that went so fast that we didn't have time to look the candidates over for perfection and blemishes in order to find someone who can withstand the scrutiny the republicans are going to put them through, but if you do decide to change it make it something that keeps people involved and makes them feel like their vote really does matter.