Saturday, March 8, 2008

Earth's Greatest Democracy ... Unless You Live in Florida or Michigan

The current flap over the seating of Florida's and Michigan's delegates at the national conventions of their respective national political parties makes it seem like an issue that's exclusive to the Democrat Party. That's because the nearly indistinguishable politics of the Left and Lefter Presidential Candidates of that party has resulted in them both scrambling to find some leverage to give themselves a winning advantage. However, this is a much broader topic that merits the interest of Americans of every political stripe.

We touched on this in an earlier posting, entitled "It ain't over ... 'til its Beginning?! ". There, we pointed out the inappropriate impact of the Iowa Caucuses on the slate of Presidential Candidates that voters in other States would get to consider. The key question we posed was, "Why should fewer than 100,000 Iowa Republicans and fewer than 200,000 Iowa Democrats have such sway over the 300 million of us living in the U.S.?" From there, we went on to note that, though we see this as a flawed beginning to the current process, there are many other flaws in the process sorely needing change. What we see as the most flawed part of the process is at the end ... the Electoral College. Our illustration of this came from our former home, Orange County, California. In the 2004 Presidential Election it was the "Reddest County" in the nation and though that "Reddest County" had a population of over 3 million, not one Electoral Vote from California was cast for President Bush.

So, we see this latest flap as just that ... the latest flap ... over Earth's Greatest Democracy not living up to its self-image. Since "majority rule" is a major principle of Democracy, we can't legitimately define ourselves that way if everyone doesn't get to participate equally. And, since the form of government in our Democracy is a Presidential Republic, how is it that political parties are dictating the terms of participation for the voting citizens of sovereign States?

With that said, our perspective is that each State should determine how their respective primaries or caucuses are to be conducted and any political party wanting to participate should simply comply. We do recognize the national interest in and need for conducting this process in an organized manner across the 50 States, though. But that certainly seems attainable. There are a number of reasonable approaches to this, including Time Zone groupings.

Finally, there's the matter of the general election. The Electoral College was meant for a U.S. of a different time. However, the Electoral College emerged out of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and making the assumption that all that wisdom has expired may be, in itself, unwise. Still, major revision is called for, at the very least. Though no "universally accepted" definition of Democracy exists, surely we can find a far better way to set an example of being what we claim to be ... the Greatest Democracy on the face of the Earth.

6 comments:

Sean Harry said...

Of course you realize that if we did not have the Electoral College, George Bush would never have been President. Didn't GORE win the popular vote -- everywhere except in Orange County? :-)

Sean Harry
www.orcms.com

Gary Wiram said...

Aha! You've illuminated the enduring wisdom of our Founding Fathers. That's why I called for revision of the Electoral College rather than its elimination. I want to have elections that are fair, not ones that are insanely fair.

Anonymous said...

What "revisions" would you have that would not leave California and NY electing every President from now until eternity? Talk about being "disenfranchised".

Primaries are NOT elections in the sense of "voters rights". They are a function of the individual political parties, not required anywhere by law.

It seems strange, to me, that the voters of Michigan and Florida, like all of the other early primaries, attempt to disenfranchise those who vote after. Now that they may not be able to do so, they scream, every vote should count?

Fair, but not "insanely fair"? OK

Gary Wiram said...

If you check my earler posting, entitled "It ain't over ... 'til its Beginning?! ", you'll see that I don't pretend to have all the answers to this. I think the inequities you point out and the ones I point out are all valid. If our political leaders would actually collaborate on this, instead of just pitting themselves against each other based on any difference they can find, I'm sure an equitable solution can be found. Although we don't see things exactly alike, your closing comment about my "insanely fair" remark shows that this sort of good humored collaboration is possible.

Anonymous said...

I am glad that you took my comments as you did, it is sometimes too easy for me to be nasty.

As a conservative in Oklahoma, I love the electoral college. We don't really get much of a say here anyway, but without the college our voice would be reduced to nearly zero.

I would favor a National Primary. All the votes on the same day. Then the "independents" in NH and the evangelicals in Iowa would not have a bigger voice, like they do now, than the rest of us. I can't understand why the Parties allow it to continue.

Gary Wiram said...

Marshall:

Although I talked about Orange County, I live in Clark County, WA and I grew up in Vigo County, IN. So, to quote an anti-hero, "I feel your pain" ... including what it feels like to duck tornadoes.

I'm OK with a National Primary too. Although you mention Evangelicals (I fit that description), I don't think you meant to single us out. I think you were saying that no particular interest group should have undue sway and, if so, I fully agree. Regardless of the interest, that's Minority Rule.

Finally, "conservative in Oklahoma"? Does that make you a J.C. Watts fan? I am! I wish he'd get "back in the game".