PRIMARY HELL April 8, 2008
Posted by wmmbb in US Politics.trackback
I know, I know, I am being blinkered again, but doesn’t the race for the Democratic presidential nomination seem more than a little crazy. And it never strikes the journalists who write about “The loneliest call”, as John Dickerson in The Washington Post, or Bill Boyarsky who writes “Nobody votes for a quitter” at Truthdig, to consider this is not a rational process, or compare it to the alternatives. In a parliamentary system as we saw with the Crean, Beazley and finally Rudd leadership of the ALP in the electoral wilderness, time, events and ultimately public opinion ultimately settled on the alternative prime minister.
While Dickerson notes that candidates will have a moment of realization, especially when the money runs out they will have to quit. He says :
Clinton won’t experience that quick death. She has the money, votes and media attention to continue until the convention. (So does Obama, for that matter, if he were suddenly to become the underdog.) Undecided superdelegates could rally to her, but this doesn’t look likely to happen anytime soon. The voters could show an overwhelming preference in the remaining 10 contests or deliver a big upset in a single, crucial one, but they’ve been no help so far in bringing the race to a close. “I don’t think it’s going to be a 3 a.m. phone call,” says the Democratic stalwart Robert Shrum of the final moment that will persuade one of the candidates to get out of the race. “I think it will gradually dawn.”
So what it comes down to is the knock out blow, and not just one candidate will be trying to deliver the coup de grae, with the result that their contest could deny the successful candidate the election.
Now consider what Boyarsky says, going into political history to illustrate the case:
Naturally, Clinton is ignoring all this. Real politicians don’t worry about the harm they may inflict on themselves or even others when they are in pursuit of victory. One of my favorite stories of such determination was told by historian James MacGregor Burns in his book “Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom 1940-45.” Burns describes a fall day in 1944 when the gravely ill president, campaigning in New York for a fourth term, was determined to show he was healthy enough to serve. Roosevelt spoke in a drizzle in Ebbets Field:
“It was pouring by the time he was eased back into the car. He was given a rubdown and dry clothes at a nearby Coast Guard motor pool. Then the ordeal resumed.
“Its top still down by the president’s order, the limousine led a long cavalcade through Queens to the Bronx, then to Harlem and mid-Manhattan and down Broadway. … The cold rain came down relentlessly, drenching the President’s upflung arm and sleeve, rolling off his fedora, circling the lines of the grin on his face, seeping into his coat and shirt. … Hour after hour the procession continued in the downpour. People waited under umbrellas and soggy newspapers to catch a glimpse of the big smile. At his wife’s apartment in Washington Square he changed again and rested. That evening, the president spoke to the Foreign Policy Association in the Grand Ballroom of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on Park Avenue. …”
That was a real politician. Only his death the following April removed Roosevelt from his job.
Now that is crazy.
Suppose the Democrats lose, as some are saying they well might, then as a matter of course there will be a reconsideration of the primary election process. I suppose that primaries are indelibly part of the presidential election process, but could they not be elections to elect delegates to the convention, who in turn elect the nominee at the convention? The problem then will be the level of turn out for the actual primary elections. Whatever the faults, it is the case that Obama is attracting people into the process who otherwise would be on the sidelines. However the costs are enormous. The deeper problem is the institutionalization of the two party system, partly a product of racist history or the denial of diversity in the melting pot.
The only solution I can suggest is to change the electoral system to encourage the establishment of minor parties to create a more pluralist and competitive electoral system which in turn may more closely represent public opinion. What, for example, happened to the Progress Party of Ross Perot, which gained almost 20% of the vote? It withered away because it was not sustained by winning office at the other levels.
POSTSCRIPT:
The suggestion made in comments is that the 18th Century US system of voting is the best of all possible worlds. To disabuse ourselves of such a misconception, listen to Steven Hill at the Cambridge Forum. The recording is not dated, some details have changed, but the case is substantially the same.
[...] 7th, 2008 · No Comments Dellis wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt“I don’t think it’s going to be [...]
Wrong I think. If you have a presidential system you encourage the formation of two political blocs on the left and right. The absence of PR has nothing to do with it. The Republicans and Democrats are effectively coalitions of several different parties that come together for presidential elections and parliamentary cooperation(which different parties do in France). Congress is as diverse as many PR-elected parliaments, indeed probably more so, given the absence of central party endorsements.
Thanks Geoff.
The terms right and left are relative. Presidential or parliamentary PR allows for the representation of political diversity by expressing a spectrum of political opinion. The added advantage is that strategic alliances must be openly negotiated, either before or after an election depending on the particular system adopted, and the elected parties are thereby made accountable to public opinion.
The apparent diversity of Congress is probably on objective criteria as mythical as its independence. Districting, for example, does not enhance diversity, and neither does the geographical misrepresentation of the Senate. In the first case PR would solve the problem by making the present practice unnecessary.A perpetual war time presidency and signing statements are hardly indicative of an independent Congress in practice, as distinct from the intention of the Constitution.
A preferential system could easily be used for presidential or gubernatorial elections creating the space for PR to be applied to Congress.
Further to your observation regarding presidential systems Geoff, the case is very different in France, and in Chile and Nicaragua who have adopted the French system. There multiple parties contest the first national election, and if one does not win an absolute majority, a second run off election is held. Thus they might benefit by a preferential (instant runoff system). The American system is different because its electoral systems are based on the States. You probably know this, but I am merely pointing out I do as well, so your generalization is not accurate. You got me thinking about the cost involved as well as the physically exhausting nature of the process for candidates. And then the winner has to turn around and run the gauntlet again.
“elections to elect delegates to the convention, who in turn elect the nominee at the convention” – isn’t that exactly what primaries are? The delegates in the primaries pledge to vote for a certain candidate if they are elected to the convention. Delegates elected for a candidate that withdraws before the convention are then free to choose a different candidate, just like the superdelegates. Disclaimer: I’m not resident in the US, and didn’t even check details on ‘pedia.
Perhaps I was not clear. The suggestion was that primaries be just for the delegates who would be free to elect the delegates at the election.That would be like an electoral college, which does not work as such, and neither perhaps would this suggestion. I was trying to think of an alternative process.
The truth is that none of this was supposed to happen. The Democratic nomination was supposed to be decided like the Republicans. The Obama campaign and the caucuses have made the difference, and the fact that he has not had a decisive win, as he may be able to do in Pennsylvania. We will have to see what happens on 22 April.
Thanks for the comment James. Good point about referring to Wikipedia, here is the full low down on the Democratic Primaries nomination process. A critical point is that “voter turnout was at historically high levels in the 2008 primaries and caucuses, with many contests setting all-time records for turnout”. The other quote that I noticed was that “the last brokered convention was in 1952″. If that happens it is up to the Convention delegates to independently choose the candidate.
I would not have complained in retrospect if the same sort of electoral scrutiny was given to G Bush. History may have turned out differently.
[...] wmmbb is sick of the US Primaries.Kim says props to the protesters at the Olympic flame relay. Jeremy suggests an alternative form of protest while Henry Farrell muses about the differences between this proposed Olympic boycott and earlier ones. [...]