It might seem, to the casual US presidential election observer, that the primary season has long been over. Mitt Romney, who is still the presumptive nominee for the Republican party, has focused all of his attention towards Obama after all of the other contenders dropped out months ago. But technically the season finished just recently, as a couple of people in Utah — the last state to hold their primary — found themselves by a polling station and thought: it might be cool to vote!
Political Parties are fun!
There has long been discontent over the way that states hold their primaries and caucuses. Rambling documents spell out how the two big parties can operate and organize. Candidates select their battle grounds and abandon the regions where they stand little chance. Everything is complicated further by the system of delegates that are supposed to represent the population of voters.
This system creates grand imbalances between the states, with campaigns and reporters flocking to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The excitement is palpable, and completely overblown every four years. But by the end of the primary season, there is hardly any mention of the results of the last states. And even though Romney is Mormon and guaranteed to win in abundantly Republican Utah, it still disenfranchises the voters there.
For some states, the schedule of primaries is blatantly unfair. The media spotlight is heavily divided on a date like Super Tuesday, when the largest number of primary voters turn out. In contrast, Iowa’s primary has weeks and weeks of run up, town hall meetings, and campaigns trying to connect themselves through a distant uncle who once lived in Ames. If a state wants to buck the system and move their primary up (or back) to capture more attention from the candidates, the political parties can block their delegates from their convention! Meaning that a small group can nullify the voters if they disagree with the move because it “upsets” the balance and strategy of the primary. If this doesn’t sound like democracy to you, you’re right.
There is a loophole here, which is that the parties can select whoever they wish, the caucuses are only a nonbinding way to sample the population to find the best candidate for the national election. The delegates from states are only representatives from the parties, and can do whatever they want. Surely the national election must be different? It is and isn’t.
It isn’t different because of the electoral college, the buffer placed between the population and the government to ensure that a crazy person like Justin Bieber doesn’t get elected President (not that Bieber is crazy, but he would be a crazy candidate for President). It is really the electoral votes that decide an election. But it is more democratic because the electoral college represents population of states, and votes on the majority side. It is not exact, but it is better than the caucus system which allows for the party big wigs to pick their horse if they feel the American people haven’t done a good job.
Remember when the Unethical Amphibian promised to take his campaign all the way to the Republican convention? To contest popular voting results and to try to convince the party that he was the right guy to challenge Obama? It’s this type of anti-democratic belief that threatens to damage our population’s ability to govern ourselves. But what Newt knew, and the reason why he didn’t pursue this strategy, was that in today’s age democracy is held high. Voters immediately see the results of primary elections and would questions a party’s commitment to democracy if the party were to rebuff the polls and pick a different candidate. At least in this way, we are progressing as a nation.
Now we wait a month for the conventions to see exactly what Team Romney will look like and what the Republicans think their chances are. There is no doubt it will be hilarious and depressing at the same time, with plenty for the Wrong Wing to write about.
