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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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