So what is the biggest change that is needed in this election cycle?
It's obviously the way the Democrats choose their candidate. This has been one of the biggest mistakes in process that they have ever made, all in the name of trying to please everyone.
In addition to the fact that weighted and proportional elections always keep the numbers at about 50-50 when there are two strong candidates, the so-called superdelegates add to this mess.
Let me get this right; the party that bills itself as the one that represents the people doesn't really trust the people, (the elected delegates) at the end. Instead, they build in their own little electoral college of 793 unelected officials -- the superdelegates -- which has the potential of negating the voice of the voters and elected delegates. Is this really fair?
The Republicans can hardly walk and chew gum at the same time politically, but one has to be impressed with the conciseness of their process. "Just the votes" is all that counts. No one seems to be complaining except that their candidate may be lame, and too old. And the process seems to have worked for them.
The Democrats have too many people at the table and they try to satisfy the particular interests of every group. In doing so, they out-think themselves consistently and get bogged down in rules that hang around their necks like the proverbial albatross. This year it has put them in a position where their party leaders have been weakened, their party is for the moment split, and one candidate will win the nomination without the popular vote (immaterial in playing by the rules, but bad perception for a party that still is steaming about the Election of 2000 being stolen in the same kind of situation).
Much like the Election of 2000, the will of the voter is being trumped by the will of an unelected group, the super delegates. Senator Obama could not get the nomination without them.
So, "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN" for the Democrats will be a revamping of the whole process for next time, while they hope that this time it doesn't cost them another general election that seemed to be "in the bag" not long ago. GS
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Time for change in the way candidates are selected-- at least for the Dems
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Gary,
I have to disagree with you on this one. BOTH parties have superdelegates, the Democrats just have more and therefore the race doesn't have to be quite as close for them to make a difference. If the Republican race was close we'd be hollering about the same things.
The only reason the Republican race wasn't as close was because the majority of the Republican party is afraid of change, so John McCain was the obvious choice because he'll maintain most of what the Bush administration has put in place.
BOTH parties need to reform the way they choose their nominees. IF there are even going to be Primaries, they should be 100% popular vote. I personally think Primaries should be done away with, and that if you want to run for President you should just be able to go for it without all of this garbage.
Whoops, forgot my other point.
The voice of the people isn't negated by the superdelegates. IF I was a proponent of the superdelegate method, which I am not, I would advocate the method by saying that the people's voice WAS heard and that superdelegates are helpful in deciding votes that are too close.
If one candidate really stood out above the rest the superdelegates wouldn't even matter. See my previous comment about John McCain.
And if we're so torn up about particular individuals carrying more sway and "negating" the people's voice, what about the Vice President deciding a 50/50 Senate vote? Is he negating the people's voice by making the deciding vote in that scenario?
For a Party primary it would be nice to have an election based upon just popular vote. However, this IS a party trying to put forward the best candidate to defeat the opposition. As such, it is kind of understandable.
As far as the GENERAL election goes, there is NO reason for it not being based totally on the popular vote. I have heard aregugments to keep the elector vote but in this day and age they no longer make sense.
Since I don't belong to a political team, I don't really care how each tribe wants to choose their candidates, but I'm 100% behind "anonymous's" opinion that general elections ought to be decided by a simple popular vote and stick a fork into the electoral college.
Of bigger concern for me is the length of the primary campaign season. It makes much more sense to me to divide the country into 4 regions and hold the primary elections on 4 consecutive dates beginning. The whole thing could be over in a month.
Our entire political system is being driven to perpetual campaigning with actual elections as dates where one campaign ends and the next one begins. It's like a never-ending-soap-opera-reality-show.
I have mixed feelings about the military budget as a lot of your listeners/readers do. However, it would be irresponsible for this country's leader(s) to pull the covers over their heads and decide to not get involved in this global atmosphere in which we now live.
On the other hand, I feel George Bush's biggest downfall has been the fact that he is naive in believing that we can democratize any or all of the Middle East. For him (or us) to determine that they would be happier and less imposed upon if they became more Americanized is unfathomable to someone who has never known true liberty.
Also, on another note, I remember what happened to our military when Bill Clinton was president and we were living in a relatively peaceful time. It has taken us years to "beef up" our military since his reign.
Just because we don't see it on the network news or CNN doesn't indicate that there is not a lot of behind-the-scenes negotiation going on and frankly, the American public doesn't need to know everything that takes place because the global viewing network will know it as soon as it hits the news wire.
Thanks for reading my ramblings...
Pam Abbott
York
Just a correction for Pam. The actual drawdown in military spedning was started by Bush I right after the Regan years . The spending for Clinton was about even with Bush I.
Just a couple of thoughts...
Doug, the Republicans do not have super delegates. Their system is not perfect by any means, but it is much cleaner. James Carville said at a dinner I was attending the other week that their's was the way for the Democrats to go. Change has very little to do with their wanting to use that method or not.
Anonymous, I agree with your thoughts about the United States trying to democratize other countries. We must be wise enough to know that we cannot impose any kind of democracy on any country. I think we confuse democratization with the concept of setting the table for people to choose their own government and live in freedom. The government of Iraq will shape itself based on their own situation, but the atmosphere must be such that freedom has a chance to germinate. I believe that finally we are on the right track in doing and understanding that fact. It remains to be seen whether or not we and they will be ultimately successful, but that is where I see the difference in your well-thought-out argument. GS
I don't want to get into a a "they don't, they do too, no they don't, yes they do" kind of thing here, but here's the skinny on Republican delegates:
The Republican Party has two types of delegates: Pledged and Unpledged.
Out of the total number of delegates, 1,917 are Pledged and have to indicate support for a particular candidate at the convention. They are usually elected or chosen on the state and local level.
Unpledged delegates compromise 463 out of the total 2,380 delegates and are not required to indicate a preference for a candidate.
Unpledged delegates...Superdelegates...
Same thing. Right?
Yes.
The unpledged delegates are effectively the same thing as super delegates.
Doug,
You are right! Different results as to how they affected this election; wouldn't you say?
Doug,
In addition to my previous comment and admission of your correctness on "super" vs. "unpledged", I also think that the weighted counting of delegates helped to condemn the present Democratic primary system. That is a difference.
Post a Comment