Democracy or Delegatocracy?
Ok, I must admit that I am a bit of a political novice since this is the first time I have really watched a primary this closely. However, this will be the fourth presidential election I will vote in (yes, I am almost 30), and this is the only time I can remember having the primary still be relevant this late in the season. Last election, there was an incumbent president on the republican side, and it seemed like Kerry kind of took over after Iowa for the Democrats and never looked back on his way to the nomination. I know Bush and McCain fought hard in New Hampshire in 2000, but my impression was Rove took care of (dirty) business in South Carolina, and W was never really threatened after that
This year, the democrats have a heated battle, and I am glad to really like both candidates. Having voted in Illinois before this election, which is never a swing state, I am excited to be registered in North Carolina, as our primary may be the one to decide it all. However, I have been very surprised to learn that the delegates are not proportioned out equally based on votes/caucuses. In fact, the system is so confusing, that it is hard to even tell who is ahead. For those of you who don't know what I am talking about the New York Times does a decent job of explaining it.
And what is up with the superdelegates? I heard they were enacted to be sure the party had representation from someone they believed in, and it was enacted after George McGovern received the nomination in 1972. Still, does it strike anyone as weird that Bill Clinton gets to be a superdelegate since his wife is running. Does anyone think it would be funny for the political world to try to establish an anti-nepotism rule for elections? I do.
I simply feel weird that it is not completely in the voters' hands to decide who gets nominated, especially since the system is very different than in the general election, not that the electoral college makes much sense either.
Someone else told me that primary voting is a relatively recent thing. It used to be argued about during conventions where political power brokers essentially decided who we, the American public, got to vote for. If there is any sign that the two party system is insufficient, this may be it.
Still, I guess it is the system we have to use. Maybe one of this year's fellers can help explain the rationale to me. I know we have some political junkies out there...
posted by Michael at
10:54 AM
4 Comments:
And due to weird proportional representation rules, and the way the caucuses operate, even with the normal delegates they don't necessarily reflect who won even state to state. For instance in the popular vote, Clinton won Nevada, but Obama won more delegates: 13-12. That being said one CNN article was saying that on Super Tuesday the candidates were separated by less then 1% of the total vote.
Ok - political junkie stuff aside (because it definately doesn't apply to this fella) - *listening* to this political process has been interesting. By "listening," I don't mean on CNN, NPR, or anything along those lines - I mean actually listening to people talking about their individual involvement in the primary and electoral candidate process. Friends of mine went to South Carolina to canvass for the candidates of their choice(s). Other friends volunteered in Iowa, others volunteered in Colorado and Washington (state), yet others got involved in Louisiana and Missouri. I haven't really invested the time to get to know the ins and outs of the political system (my own apathy is showing through here, I guess), but think that it's pretty darn awesome that so many young people are getting involved in the political process, as hairy/confusing/whatever as it might be. In terms of firing people up, I think that this race and these combinations of candidates have done so - I just hope that we continue to care and to act.
Heck, maybe if there's a whole new active generation of political doers, we might be able to help to make some changes?
Great post, Michael. I agree: the voting process should be simple enough that one could thoroughly explain it on a tri-fold brochure, in at least two languages.
Does Washington DC get to vote in a primary, even though come November their votes are meaningless? ...
If Obama loses the nomination, what do ya'll think will happen to (what I, at least) interpret as a new and exciting momentum for the Democratic party? I read that he was mobilizing a lot of first-time voters in the mid-west... part of the reason that he was able to keep up with Hilary is that he was garnering those new votes. It seems like, in a manner reminiscent of 2004's Howard Dean, Obama has also truly captured the youth sentiment. If he loses, will a Hilary nomination turn into the "better of two evils" choice or do you think these political "newbies" will rally around her?
Great post and comments. It was interesting to take part in, or simply hear about, challenging discussions between U.S. Peace Corps Volunteers and Chinese Host Country Nationals. The PC Volunteers sometimes went on a limb to discuss politics with the college age students that we taught. We were, at times, in disbelief at the "voting" that would occur- essentially a university's leaders would have already chosen the appropriate candidate, and students were merely voting to participate in the physical act: their votes were meaningless. This resonates with Michael's original question about our political process being truly democratic or, well, not. Some of the more precocious Chinese students would quickly remind us of the electoral delegation that truly brokers power. It was nice, and sometimes frustrating, to be challenged in these ways.
P.S. If any of us ever runs for political office, the Fellers should definitely be "Superdelegates"
Post a Comment
<< Home