To an extent, I actually don't dislike the caucus process . . . that's what MN had, and I participated in one - and in some ways, it's the purest form of democracy because you actually get to discuss a candidates relative strengths and merits prior to actually casting a vote. However, so few people actually understand how the process works and it's so confusing that turnout is relatively low as opposed to casting a ballot.
I don't like the primary calendar - but as someone brought up on my post about it - having a nationwide primary then casts more attention to the states with the most delegates (just as national elections cast more attention on the states with the most electoral votes), so I'm not sure that's the right way to go either.
I don't know enough about superdelegates to fully understand how it works, but it seems to be yet another example of how the whole process needs revamping.
Which gets me to the issue of stripping a state's delegates. That strikes me as not only undemocratic but downright unconstitutional - taxation without representation and a denial of voting rights, and I'm really, really surprised that there's not been more noise about that or a potential Supreme Court challenge (of course, the time to challenge was before the voting took place because now if anyone does it'll just look like Hillary's trying to skew the delegate count in her favor and that, too, will be considered undemocratic)
My main problem with caucuses is that you have to be available at a particular time or else you can't vote. No absentee voters. No elderly or disabled voters. No observant Jewish voters in Nevada, because the caucus was on Saturday!
As for the primary calendar: First, if there were a national primary, I don't think all of the attention would be on big-delegate states unless the states are winner-take-all. In a proportional-win state (which they all are on the Dem side), campaigning would be about picking the state where you think you can most easily pick up another delegate or 3. That would probably end up being the densest areas, but not necessarily the biggest states.
But second, I think my preference is not a national primary. I keep waffling back and forth between that and two other choices: A series of 4 or 5 primary days, each 3 or 4 weeks apart, on each of which 10 or 12 states vote. They would either be divided up by state size, with the smallest going first and the biggest going last, or by region of the country, with the choice of which goes first rotating every 4 years.
I'm quite pleased with the fact that states lost their delegates. This whole "I'm more important than you, I should go first" bullshit is stupid, and if it's left to the states to pick when their primaries are, they're going to keep getting earlier and earlier as they jockey for earliest position, and then we'll end up with primaries in November for elections the next December. Which sounds like a farce to me. :)
I clearly need to poke at this some more - because the people being penalized (e.g., Joe and Jane Voter) are not the ones who had anything to do with choosing when the primaries are (insofar as I understand in FL at least where my friend who had her vote stripped said, "no one asked me!! I would've said leave it where it is!")
So the citizens themselves (at least in FL - I don't know about MI) are being penalized for a decision made without their input which is further example of disenfranchisement.
As far as I'm aware, the states technically don't have to ask the voters at all -- WV awards more than half of its Republican delegates based on a convention of party officers. So it would seem that voting in a primary election is not anyone's actual legal right, although I haven't actually bothered to look up any of the laws or rules.
It does suck for the voters, but I think my point was that they should be angry at their state party leadership and not the DNC. I think. I haven't had a lot of sleep.
Which is why I need to look at it, too - on the one hand I do like the pure federalism and states' rights aspect of allowing the decision behind a party nomination being independent of the national government and on a state-by-state basis.
On the other hand (and this is only my second primary as the first one I voted was absentee and my second one was a caucus, so I'm still learning how it works), there seems to be a great deal of disenfranchisement - both in how much early states' votes are weighed (so that, in most years those that vote later have a much narrower field, if at all), and with regard to the states being penalized, so that it seems to be that if this really is the peoples' choice for the party nominee, then it really ought to be more standardized.
One thing I do have no objection to (although apparently those registered as independent disagree) is ensuring that only those registered with a party can vote - since it is the "Democratic" and the "Republican" nominee, then it should be people who declare themselves as such who have a voice . . .
I'm not sure how to fix the rest though - both because I think it would mean telling the parties they're really not as powerful as they'd like to believe, and because to some extent there's a states' rights issue involved and federal interference could be limited.
the reason there are no constitutional or legal problems with stripping a state of its delegates to a party convention is because primaries are not functions of government. the fact that the party has set up a selection system strongly resembling the federal approach notwithstanding, the democratic party's nominee for president is whoever the democratic party says it is.
striping florida and michigan of delegates was a pretty drastic move, but as i understand it, the state parties were given the option of moving their primary back to their previously scheduled dates and refused.
I'm undecided on the superdelegate issue. They have them here, too, except they're called ex officio delegates, usually. I think it'd probably just as unfair to have important party leaders such as committee chairmen and state governors not get a vote as it is for superdelegates to "corrupt" the will of the people.
However, I don't particularly agree with the primary/caucus system in the first place, so. :)
Actually, what strikes me as most undemocratic is having winner-take-all primary.
On the flip side to that, my biggest pet peeve is people announcing which states Democratic candidates won as if that makes any difference at all. If you "win" a state 51%-49%, you're splitting the delegates down the middle. It really doesn't matter in the slightest who actually had the extra two percent. Saying Obama won Missouri or Clinton won Nevada is entirely misleading.
In Canada, you don't even get to vote in our equivalent to primaries unless you're a card-carrying party member who is paid up on dues. "Regular folk" don't get to pick the party leaders.
Personally, the idea that random average people would even be involved in this process is mind-boggling. The party themselves should be selecting who they think a) best represents the party's interests, and b) can get elected, and if the electorate at large doesn't like their choice, then they lose.
Even better, the fact that in some states, a registered Democrat can show up and vote for the biggest Republican jerk-ass in an effort to try and get a crappy candidate on the general election ballot is ... I don't know, it just makes no sense to me. (Apparently some people actually encouraged Democrats to do this in Michigan, seeing as there was no point to voting in the D primary, might as well fuck with the Republicans some.)
I think that makes more sense in a parliamentary system than in a...um, whatever we have, with the district representation stuff and the strong executive stuff and all.
Also, the Canada system makes sense the more parties you have. Here, if you hate the two main parties, your best option is to fix one of them by your primary voting. In Israel, which I gather is like Canada but with lots more parties, you can vote for some minor party that better represents your interests. With no primaries and 2 parties, I'd feel quite disenfranchised.
Our system is structured for two parties, though. (For example, a third-party that gets 10% of the congressional votes statewide will not have 10% of its congresspeople from that party; it will likely have none, unless most of those 10% are all in the same district.) There's no way to fix that systematically without blowing up much of the system. It's just different than in Canada/Israel.
Not so much different. A party that gets 10% of the votes in any one area in Canada won't win any seats either. Israel is proportional representation, Canada is "winner-take-all", except that instead of a state-by-state basis, it's a seat-by-seat basis.
So you need usually about 40% support in any one district to win a seat, and quite often parties like the Green Party will win 15% of the popular vote and no seats.
i have to agree with fweebles here. our system has historically only supported two parties at a time, but i think that has more to do with habit than with fundamental structures.
In Canada, you don't even get to vote in our equivalent to primaries unless you're a card-carrying party member who is paid up on dues. "Regular folk" don't get to pick the party leaders.
It varies by state here -- some people have to be registered with a party - others allow cross-party voting. And some allow independents to vote. One story that I'm somewhat ashamed to tell now, is that in MN, I was registered independent, since you didn't have to declare to vote in the primary and I was still slowly gaining my political freedom from my Republican parents.
And so the caucus I participated in was for the Republican nominee, since Gore's nomination was all but sewn up, I figured I'd go ahead and vote for the Republican I liked - and I cast my vote in favor of John McCain as (at the time) I really liked his platform of reform.
I still wonder how he would've evolved had the party not scared him into thinking he had to be more and more conservative in order to be electable.
Personally, the idea that random average people would even be involved in this process is mind-boggling. The party themselves should be selecting who they think a) best represents the party's interests, and b) can get elected, and if the electorate at large doesn't like their choice, then they lose.
I'd be a lot happier if the parties had a lot less power, personally. But that's my American bias - and, although to an extent I'd be scared to see what a "pure" democracy might deem a reasonable candidate, I think said person would also be a lot more representative of the will of the "people" (which is the third word of our constitution) as opposed to the will of those with the money and who control the bias in the earlier voting.
I think the will of the "people" might also finally get the Evangelical Christians out of the Republican party as well - since, I think they're only 15% of the U.S. population and yet have somehow embedded themselves so deeply into that party that they now manage to exert a great deal more influence than they by rights ought to (which could easily lead into my fear right now that Huckabee might wind up being McCain's running mate, but I'll avoid spouting off too much more).
Even better, the fact that in some states, a registered Democrat can show up and vote for the biggest Republican jerk-ass in an effort to try and get a crappy candidate on the general election ballot is ... I don't know, it just makes no sense to me.
I do think that if it's a party's nominee then only registered party members should be able to vote in the primary - which is another reason I think it needs to be standardized. I need to think more about how I'd go about doing so - because in addition to the nominating conventions, I think the electoral college needs to go - because it skews the results beyond what the popular vote is . . .
I was just saying last night that I can't see who McCain's running mate would be besides Huckabee, with perhaps an outside nod to Giuliani. (I don't think Giuliani would take a VP post, just because.)
Which is kind of frightening, given how damn old McCain is.
I know - he'd need Huckabee in order to win back all the conservatives who think he's not conservative enough (which I still don't understand since he's done everything short of wear sack-cloth and ashes and anyone listening to or reading his website should fully understand that he's "seen the light" (bad pun fully intended).
Then again, if he does chase that vote, then perhaps it'll sway the disgusted moderates and undecided back to either Clinton or Obama.
(one of whom I still have to vote for next Tuesday and I really need to stop scaring myself with a presumptive McCain/Huckabee ticket and convincing myself I need to try to game the system by voting for whom I think has a better chance of defeating that and instead just vote for whom I think is best)
Also, Charlie Crist, the governor of my great home state of Florida, has been seen with McCain at a lot of speeches and stuff. Crist is really popular here, and as VP he would easily carry Florida, a big swing state.
Can I vote for 'delegates in general'? (I also loathe the electoral college, for basically the same reason. Outdated, silly, and not necessarily a great representation of the country.)
I like the electoral college, because I like quaint things. I'd like it a lot more more if most or all states didn't have a winner-take-all elector process. (As it is now, I think there are 1 or 2 states that aren't winner-take-all, but they're such small states that no one notices.)
As far as "winner take all" states go, it should either be all states do this, or none of them do. As it stands now, if a state divides their electoral votes, they will simply be ignored in favor of states who are winner take all.
I picked the calendar thing because it's ridiculous. They should all be on the same day. I'm sure the media would hate it and report it as poorly as real elections, but dear god I am sick of this drawn out bullshit and the drama over votes that barely even count and all of that nonsense. --
However, the option that should have been there was the entirety of the two-party system.
Goddamn Washington, why were you so anti-parties? your attempt to exclude them from the Constitution just made them worse. (I blame the Civil War.)
i have to say, i rather agree with fweebles several posts up: it makes good sense to me that the public at large have something less to do with the nominee selection process. it doesnt make much sense to give randomly selected nonrepresentative sections of the electorate more strongly weighted votes. the primary system on the whole is absurd, but as a manifestation of intraparty politics, im ok with that.
i do kinda hate the government's approach to elections. i think its shockingly irresponsible that election day is not a federally mandated holiday; i think the absence of a national standard for voting machines crazy; i think the electoral college is a fundamentally undemocratic institution; in general, i think our democracy kinda sucks. the primary system is a little flagrant, but i'm more concerned with the pieces of the puzzle that are actually functions of government and law.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
None of the Above/All of the Above
I don't like the primary calendar - but as someone brought up on my post about it - having a nationwide primary then casts more attention to the states with the most delegates (just as national elections cast more attention on the states with the most electoral votes), so I'm not sure that's the right way to go either.
I don't know enough about superdelegates to fully understand how it works, but it seems to be yet another example of how the whole process needs revamping.
Which gets me to the issue of stripping a state's delegates. That strikes me as not only undemocratic but downright unconstitutional - taxation without representation and a denial of voting rights, and I'm really, really surprised that there's not been more noise about that or a potential Supreme Court challenge (of course, the time to challenge was before the voting took place because now if anyone does it'll just look like Hillary's trying to skew the delegate count in her favor and that, too, will be considered undemocratic)
Re: None of the Above/All of the Above
As for the primary calendar: First, if there were a national primary, I don't think all of the attention would be on big-delegate states unless the states are winner-take-all. In a proportional-win state (which they all are on the Dem side), campaigning would be about picking the state where you think you can most easily pick up another delegate or 3. That would probably end up being the densest areas, but not necessarily the biggest states.
But second, I think my preference is not a national primary. I keep waffling back and forth between that and two other choices: A series of 4 or 5 primary days, each 3 or 4 weeks apart, on each of which 10 or 12 states vote. They would either be divided up by state size, with the smallest going first and the biggest going last, or by region of the country, with the choice of which goes first rotating every 4 years.
Re: None of the Above/All of the Above
Re: None of the Above/All of the Above
So the citizens themselves (at least in FL - I don't know about MI) are being penalized for a decision made without their input which is further example of disenfranchisement.
Re: None of the Above/All of the Above
It does suck for the voters, but I think my point was that they should be angry at their state party leadership and not the DNC. I think. I haven't had a lot of sleep.
Re: None of the Above/All of the Above
On the other hand (and this is only my second primary as the first one I voted was absentee and my second one was a caucus, so I'm still learning how it works), there seems to be a great deal of disenfranchisement - both in how much early states' votes are weighed (so that, in most years those that vote later have a much narrower field, if at all), and with regard to the states being penalized, so that it seems to be that if this really is the peoples' choice for the party nominee, then it really ought to be more standardized.
One thing I do have no objection to (although apparently those registered as independent disagree) is ensuring that only those registered with a party can vote - since it is the "Democratic" and the "Republican" nominee, then it should be people who declare themselves as such who have a voice . . .
I'm not sure how to fix the rest though - both because I think it would mean telling the parties they're really not as powerful as they'd like to believe, and because to some extent there's a states' rights issue involved and federal interference could be limited.
Re: None of the Above/All of the Above
striping florida and michigan of delegates was a pretty drastic move, but as i understand it, the state parties were given the option of moving their primary back to their previously scheduled dates and refused.
no subject
no subject
However, I don't particularly agree with the primary/caucus system in the first place, so. :)
Actually, what strikes me as most undemocratic is having winner-take-all primary.
On the flip side to that, my biggest pet peeve is people announcing which states Democratic candidates won as if that makes any difference at all. If you "win" a state 51%-49%, you're splitting the delegates down the middle. It really doesn't matter in the slightest who actually had the extra two percent. Saying Obama won Missouri or Clinton won Nevada is entirely misleading.
no subject
They do get to vote in the primaries though - why should some pigs be more equal than others later on down the line?
no subject
In Canada, you don't even get to vote in our equivalent to primaries unless you're a card-carrying party member who is paid up on dues. "Regular folk" don't get to pick the party leaders.
Personally, the idea that random average people would even be involved in this process is mind-boggling. The party themselves should be selecting who they think a) best represents the party's interests, and b) can get elected, and if the electorate at large doesn't like their choice, then they lose.
Even better, the fact that in some states, a registered Democrat can show up and vote for the biggest Republican jerk-ass in an effort to try and get a crappy candidate on the general election ballot is ... I don't know, it just makes no sense to me. (Apparently some people actually encouraged Democrats to do this in Michigan, seeing as there was no point to voting in the D primary, might as well fuck with the Republicans some.)
no subject
Also, the Canada system makes sense the more parties you have. Here, if you hate the two main parties, your best option is to fix one of them by your primary voting. In Israel, which I gather is like Canada but with lots more parties, you can vote for some minor party that better represents your interests. With no primaries and 2 parties, I'd feel quite disenfranchised.
no subject
no subject
no subject
So you need usually about 40% support in any one district to win a seat, and quite often parties like the Green Party will win 15% of the popular vote and no seats.
no subject
our system has historically only supported two parties at a time, but i think that has more to do with habit than with fundamental structures.
no subject
It varies by state here -- some people have to be registered with a party - others allow cross-party voting. And some allow independents to vote. One story that I'm somewhat ashamed to tell now, is that in MN, I was registered independent, since you didn't have to declare to vote in the primary and I was still slowly gaining my political freedom from my Republican parents.
And so the caucus I participated in was for the Republican nominee, since Gore's nomination was all but sewn up, I figured I'd go ahead and vote for the Republican I liked - and I cast my vote in favor of John McCain as (at the time) I really liked his platform of reform.
I still wonder how he would've evolved had the party not scared him into thinking he had to be more and more conservative in order to be electable.
Personally, the idea that random average people would even be involved in this process is mind-boggling. The party themselves should be selecting who they think a) best represents the party's interests, and b) can get elected, and if the electorate at large doesn't like their choice, then they lose.
I'd be a lot happier if the parties had a lot less power, personally. But that's my American bias - and, although to an extent I'd be scared to see what a "pure" democracy might deem a reasonable candidate, I think said person would also be a lot more representative of the will of the "people" (which is the third word of our constitution) as opposed to the will of those with the money and who control the bias in the earlier voting.
I think the will of the "people" might also finally get the Evangelical Christians out of the Republican party as well - since, I think they're only 15% of the U.S. population and yet have somehow embedded themselves so deeply into that party that they now manage to exert a great deal more influence than they by rights ought to (which could easily lead into my fear right now that Huckabee might wind up being McCain's running mate, but I'll avoid spouting off too much more).
Even better, the fact that in some states, a registered Democrat can show up and vote for the biggest Republican jerk-ass in an effort to try and get a crappy candidate on the general election ballot is ... I don't know, it just makes no sense to me.
I do think that if it's a party's nominee then only registered party members should be able to vote in the primary - which is another reason I think it needs to be standardized. I need to think more about how I'd go about doing so - because in addition to the nominating conventions, I think the electoral college needs to go - because it skews the results beyond what the popular vote is . . .
no subject
Which is kind of frightening, given how damn old McCain is.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Then again, if he does chase that vote, then perhaps it'll sway the disgusted moderates and undecided back to either Clinton or Obama.
(one of whom I still have to vote for next Tuesday and I really need to stop scaring myself with a presumptive McCain/Huckabee ticket and convincing myself I need to try to game the system by voting for whom I think has a better chance of defeating that and instead just vote for whom I think is best)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
--
However, the option that should have been there was the entirety of the two-party system.
Goddamn Washington, why were you so anti-parties? your attempt to exclude them from the Constitution just made them worse. (I blame the Civil War.)
no subject
i do kinda hate the government's approach to elections. i think its shockingly irresponsible that election day is not a federally mandated holiday; i think the absence of a national standard for voting machines crazy; i think the electoral college is a fundamentally undemocratic institution; in general, i think our democracy kinda sucks. the primary system is a little flagrant, but i'm more concerned with the pieces of the puzzle that are actually functions of government and law.