Is the American Primary System Undemocratic
Time for radical change has come
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
When we follow the American elections from across the world, we notice a strage sense of disconnect between what is "democratic" in the USA and the rest of the world. The election of the American president is surely one of the most complex and mind boggling political process anywhere in the world. As the 2000 election showed, though Al Gore won the majority of the popular votes, the rival candidate was able to steal the election as he won, not discounting help in Florida, the majority of the electoral college votes. The beleagured president of Kenya can learn a lesson or two from this experience.
The US constitution nowhere recognises or even mentions political parties. Fair enough. In the eighteenth century, political parties were essentially factions that gathered around a popular leader and there was not much scope for ideological battles.However, the Primaier are held on the basis of registered voters, and registered that is in a political party. Most states recognise only the Republican and the Democratic parties making any alternative extremely difficult. Not just that, in the upcoming primaries in Michigan there will be only one name on the Democratic ballot that of Hillary Clinton. The contenders, Obama and Edwards will not even decorate the ballot sheet. Is this democratic?
In cerain states Independents can choose between either of the two registered parties. If they disagree with both they do not have a choice at all. And then there is the strage ritual of the caucus, appropriately enough an Indian word for meeting. In the caucus the election is by show of hands and not a secret ballot. Why cna there not be a standard procedure all over the US as in most democratic countries.
The primary system was introduced in the 1920's in order to break the Tammany Hall machine politics. While it served a purpose then, it is time to review the primary system and making voting and the nomination process more democratic and transparent. The primary elections along with the influence of big media and big money has made the American Presidential sweep stakes a game of big bucks and big promises.
We have to look into the past to track down the convoluted path of American presidential elections. In 1787, as Charles Beard demonstrated more than a century back, the US constitution was a compromise safe guarding the interests of southern slave oligarchy, nothern bankers and manufacurers. And they were all White Anglo Saxon and, of course, potently protestant. With such a constitution any radical change in the "Power Elite" was just not possible. While it has taken more than 200 years for a woman to make a serious bid for the White House, the fact remains that even in the unlikely event of a Hillary Clinton victory, there are 7 nations/states all over the world with women presidents.
In spite of the special features of the US presidential elections, it is extremely encouraging that a black man can make a serious bid to high office. The Jesse Jackson campaign was far too divisive to count as a serious contnder.
The US constitution nowhere recognises or even mentions political parties. Fair enough. In the eighteenth century, political parties were essentially factions that gathered around a popular leader and there was not much scope for ideological battles.However, the Primaier are held on the basis of registered voters, and registered that is in a political party. Most states recognise only the Republican and the Democratic parties making any alternative extremely difficult. Not just that, in the upcoming primaries in Michigan there will be only one name on the Democratic ballot that of Hillary Clinton. The contenders, Obama and Edwards will not even decorate the ballot sheet. Is this democratic?
In cerain states Independents can choose between either of the two registered parties. If they disagree with both they do not have a choice at all. And then there is the strage ritual of the caucus, appropriately enough an Indian word for meeting. In the caucus the election is by show of hands and not a secret ballot. Why cna there not be a standard procedure all over the US as in most democratic countries.
The primary system was introduced in the 1920's in order to break the Tammany Hall machine politics. While it served a purpose then, it is time to review the primary system and making voting and the nomination process more democratic and transparent. The primary elections along with the influence of big media and big money has made the American Presidential sweep stakes a game of big bucks and big promises.
We have to look into the past to track down the convoluted path of American presidential elections. In 1787, as Charles Beard demonstrated more than a century back, the US constitution was a compromise safe guarding the interests of southern slave oligarchy, nothern bankers and manufacurers. And they were all White Anglo Saxon and, of course, potently protestant. With such a constitution any radical change in the "Power Elite" was just not possible. While it has taken more than 200 years for a woman to make a serious bid for the White House, the fact remains that even in the unlikely event of a Hillary Clinton victory, there are 7 nations/states all over the world with women presidents.
In spite of the special features of the US presidential elections, it is extremely encouraging that a black man can make a serious bid to high office. The Jesse Jackson campaign was far too divisive to count as a serious contnder.
