No doubt it is a mess with some states having primaries and others having caucuses. and then who can participate in those. In some states you have open primaries, meaning any registered voter can vote in the primary. Others you have to be affiliated with the party - meaning you would have to have checked that you are either a Democrat or Republican when you registered to vote in the primary. In the case of new York, where the primary was in March - You had till October 2015 to update your political affiliation. And God knows how you would do that. Probably not online.
Those are the things that factor into being able to vote and how and who can do that. Then once those primaries happen you have the delegates. In both parties you have the super delegates and the assigned delegates. Each having certain privileges and together determining who is in fact that party's candidate.
So it is no doubt confusing and perhaps it simply is NOT democratic. Regarding the confusion it probably would be a good thing if there was some uniformity regarding primaries. Perhaps eliminate the caucuses embraced by various states. Perhaps, decide across the country identical practices as to who can vote in the primaries. Perhaps. Regarding such changes, however, it goes to a key question: who would determine such changes. Who would impose such changes? The National parties are simply not able to tell the various state and local parties that make them up what to do locally.
That desire for local autonomy can be seen not only in this debate on parties but also in our national debate on education. Typically education is handled and funded locally. The federal government plays little role in education, and by education I am referring to K though 12. This is the cry regarding a national curriculum or any other attempt by the federal government or even at times the state governments to intrude upon local control of education.
It is not just education. Insurance is regulated largely at the state level. That is why we needed fifty separate websites for Obamacare. Insurance is controlled and regulated slightly different in each of our states. If the federal government ever decided to start a battle royale with the state governments, attempting to supervene or overrule state insurance policy could be it. That is why I found it a little disingenuous of the Republicans to suggest that the solution was not Obamacare but to allow insurers to work across state lines. So much for the party that holds the Constitution in esteem, and with it Federalism and the concept of states' rights. They were certainly willing to strip away the states's right to regulate insurance and commerce on that occasion.
I digress. The discussion is parties, specifically the Republican and Democratic parties. The charges are that they are confusing, perhaps chaotic and further that they are non-democratic. Regarding the charge of confusing, it is true. They are confusing. That said, they are run locally at the state, city and county level. To challenge that is to challenge a core piece of who we are. At least in the US, all politics are local. If you want to change and simplify the process you either do it locally or you convince the local parties to give up power so as to allow things to be simplified. Good luck on that.
The more interesting charge, which is also true, is that the parties are rigged and non-democratic. That is the nature of parties. It goes to this idea that the US is not a democracy. We are a representative government. The party system facilitates that government. Now it could be argued that a representative government is no longer appropriate or needed for the US. That considering that most people today have at least a high school education, are literate, and simply have a better grasp of the world than the population of the US in 1787 - we no longer need representatives who will in fact decide for us. Such arguments routinely come up regarding the electoral college, but it is the same with political parties.
For the moment, let's agree to shelf that idea of a representative government no longer being needed. That is simply a broader topic which could lead us to the conclusion that we abandon the US Constitution. I simply have neither the time nor the energy for such a debate. The Federalist did - Hamilton, Jay, and Madison. Tonight, however, I want to simply defend political parties.
Specifically, I want to look at one key piece of the process. The one thing I want to explore after all this is the ideal of allowing all to vote in political primaries. It is suggested by both Trump and Sanders that we allow all to vote in primaries, regardless of party affiliation. In short, today you largely have to be a member of a political party to participate in its primary. Again that is largely true. It is contingent upon what state you are in but for the most part it is true. Both Trump and Sanders feel that such requirements limit participation in elections.
The fact that you need to be a member of a political party, however, is significant. It requires that you have some understanding of what the party is about, and likewise that you have some affiliation with that party and its members. It is something you do over time and in some cases over generations. Your affiliation with that party probably gives us insights about who you are, where you live, what you do, and what you believe. It provides meaning. You belong. You have a place. To be a member of a party is simply not to just hold certain ideas and beliefs, which often change like the weather.
I overstate the position but politics, affiliations, and the parties we build are developed over time and are built on shared experience and history. To allow for any and all to vote in party primaries, regardless of the improvement of turnout. is to neglect and ignore that shared history-the value of political parties. You can argue that parties are just rigged machines but you also challenge that which has driven American politics since the beginning - local self-governing organizations and institutions, with a history of local public and private affiliations. In place of parties you offer up rational individuals, who no longer need party apparatus and who will vote for candidates as they see fit.
I beg to differ, claiming that political parties, which offer up a political history or heritage to us and that are indeed not democratic, perhaps at times can save us from ourselves. They help remind us who we are and what we value and guide us regarding how we should proceed, based upon that history.
No comments:
Post a Comment