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

A Few Days With Figgins ^ | Saturday, March 8, 2008 | Gary Wiram

[GaryWiram]

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.

[Yo-Yo]

Basic difference in philosophy:

Primaries are a private organization choosing their candidate. Why should any state “run” a primary election for the political parties?

States run elections, parties choose candidates.

[VRWCmember]

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?

First, the author obviously fails to recognize that nowhere in our Constitution is a "democracy" called for.

Second, the Founding Fathers clearly sought to avoid a "Majority Rules" form of government which could just as easily be described as Mob Rule.

Third, the political parties can set up the rules for how their nomination is determined, and the various state parties can work within the national parties to effect changes in how they select the candidates. Also, if any state doesn't like how its electoral votes are awarded then that state has the complete and perfect right to change through its legislature how to award the electoral votes.

Finally, Florida and Michigan have no cause to complain about losing their delegates to the dem convention and half their delegates to the GOP convention because they knew full well they were violating party rules when they implemented the changes.

[VRWCmember]

Welcome to FR.

You will probably find that trashing the electoral college as “the most flawed part of the process is at the end” of the Presidential election process will not win you much support on this forum. It is the Constitutional process and is the rule by which EVERY President has been chosen.