This is not what democracy looks like.

[Bjorn Against]

It is time to state the obvious. We do not live in a democracy, and the more we watch the primaries unfold the easier it is to see just how undemocratic our system is.

We have a system in which our candidates are chosen not based on who has the best qualifications, but rather on who can raise the most money and get the most media attention. We have a system that does not care much about what the country as a whole thinks, but instead allows two of the whitest states in the nation to have first say in choosing our candidates every four years. We have a system which awards delegates in such a fucked up way that a person can lose the popular vote in one state and still get more delegates than the winning candidate. We have super delegates whose votes are considered to be many times more important than those of the average citizen. We have a media that focuses all of the attention on their chosen candidates and does not provide equal time to those they do not deem worthy. We have system in which party bosses decide which states should have the most say in the electoral process, and will actually deny certain states their delegates if they do not fall in line with the party's wishes. We see candidates being excluded from debates based on a criteria not by voters but by big media conglomerates.

It is not hard to see just how fucked up our primary system is, but it seems people are willing to accept an undemocratic system as long as it benefits certain powerful people. When I see Clinton supporters bragging about how they had more super delegates awarded in Iowa, or I see Obama people bragging about how they had more delegates in Nevada despite the fact that they had less votes, I see people who are perfectly happy with an undemocratic system as long as it benefits their candidate. When I see Republicans telling us to get over two previous Presidential elections being outright stolen I condemn it, and I will also condemn Democrats who celebrate an undemocratic system.

If we want to see democracy in this country we can not keep allowing money to rule our electoral system, we need public financing to ensure that the wealthy can not control our elections through their ability to write really big checks.

If we want to see democracy in this country then we can not keep giving the same very white states first say in choosing our candidates time and time again.

If we want to see democracy in this country then we can not celebrate the fact that certain people's votes count more than others, and that sometimes a losing candidate can win more delegates than the winning candidate.

If we want to see democracy in this country we can not sit back and watch as our elections are conducted on machines that can not be audited.

If we want to see democracy we can not allow powerful corporations who are accountable to no one but their shareholders to determine who can and can not participate in our Presidential debates.

If we want to see democracy in this country we need to stand up for democracy whether it benefits our candidate or not.

We can not defeat the powerful forces that are running this country into the ground unless we can bring about democracy in this nation. Simply calling ourselves the "world's greatest democracy" does not make us the world's greatest democracy. The fact is our system is extremely undemocratic, and we can not take power from the hands of the corporate interests and give it back to the people unless we are honest about the fact that our current system favors the voices of the few over the voices of the masses.

Speak the truth and speak it loudly. America is not a democracy.

[MADem]

1. Primaries aren't the problem. The CAUCUS system is.

It's the opposite of one voter, one vote. It's for insiders and activists, special interests, and movers and shakers. It's for people with flexible work schedules, who are rich enough to take a day off if they have to. It's for people who are not ill, bedridden, hospitalized, working, or serving in the military.

It's idiotic, and the opposite of democracy. Primaries ARE democratic. You have a ballot, you have a list of candidates, and you vote for the one YOU like.

If your candidate doesn't get enough votes, that means that he or she couldn't excite enough people to back him or her, in order to get that message out.

[Bjorn Against]

3. Caucuses are undemocratic, but they are not the only thing that is undemocratic about our system.

Primaries could be conducted in a democratic fashion, but they are not being conducted in a democratic fashion. They are still ruled by money, they are still conducted on voting machines that are not audited for accuracy, and certain states are allowed to have first say while other states don't get to give their say until the nomination has already been decided.

You are right that the caucus system is very messed up and undemocratic, but the problems with the American electoral system go far beyond caucuses.

[MADem]

5. Well, you'll have to take that money bit up with the Supreme Court.

They have ruled, pretty decisively, too, that money IS speech. There are limits to this sort of speech, that are codified in the Campaign Finance Laws. To some extent, the ability to raise cash IS an indicator of popularity. I suppose it would be a REAL test of popularity if people could only give, say, five hundred bucks TOTAL in political contributions, and the bullshit distinctions between hard and soft money were eliminated.

But that's not going to happen--after all, it's the people GETTING THE MONEY who are voting on the finance regs!!

I don't have a problem with voting machines, so long as there is a paper trail. In huge states, with large cities with massive precincts, they make sense. The OPTISCAN system is probably better than some, though it could use some improvement in the way it does the automated counting (it seems to undervote, as we saw in NH) and certainly they could come up with something that is better, but so long as there are paper ballots that have a positive chain of custody, one can always recreate the result. Maybe a mandated post-voting audit of randomly selected precincts might restore voter confidence.

The way the "kick off" states are chosen is a mix of tradition, codified state law, and pure lunacy. They'll fight tooth and nail to keep their roles, though, because those events mean BILLIONS in state revenue--everything from venue rentals, office rentals, hotel rooms, food service, car rentals, hiring of temp staff, you name it.

It's not just the candidates and their staffs and supporters spending hand over fist, it's that rampaging pack of jackals following behind them--the press corps--that spend like drunken sailors (oops--I forgot to mention bar tabs and liquor sales!). It's BIG MONEY that positively impacts those economies, and a lot of them count on it. They'll put a hit out on anyone trying to muscle in on their turf!

I'm LIKING this Super Tuesday business, though--it'll get a whole LOAD of bullshit over, right quick. February is the shortest month, but it's gonna be VERY exciting, because so many primaries are bunched up on a couple of days during that month.

[Bjorn Against]

8. Well if the Supreme court is right that money is speech...

Then I find it strange just how expensive "free speech" is. I always thought that free meant, well free, but it seems that our Supreme Court seems to think that speech is a commodity. Honestly, these people know who they were appointed by and I have a hard time believing they care more about justice than they do about their own power. Just look what they did in 2000 after the Florida debacle, and you will see one of the big reasons I don't put too much faith in the Supreme Court's ability to stand up for democracy.

Thanks for the well thought out response though, you did make some very interesting points and I do appreciate it.

[MADem]

9. I've noted the same irony as you. I guess folks without deep pockets are in the

'duct tape across the mouth' crowd!

:hi:

[Truth2Tell]

14. Even if the Supreme Court allows unlimited

independent "expression" via big money - our democracy can counteract most of that with large amounts of publicly provided campaign money, and large amounts of free use of the PUBLIC airwaves.

[mondo joe]

4. I agree. I took part in one caucus and it was sort of fun, especially because I'm in

such a strong Dem area. But at the same time, I didn't like the dependence on having to be there and to argue in order to submit your support.

[MADem]

6. "They" say that Dean's criticism of Iowa (in an interview in Canada) helped to sink him

in that state. He was pretty 'dismissive' to put it kindly. And I agreed with every word he said!!

Of course, "someone" dug that four year old beauty up (someone who worked for a candidate whose initials were either RG or JFK) and that, coupled with shitty organization, destroyed Dean in IA. And then...the SCREAM. Grab the butter and jam, the poor guy was toast at that point!

Article for background, good read and a great historical demo of "gotcha" politics: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E2D91F31F93AA35752C0A9629C8B63

Videotapes of the show were broadcast on the NBC Nightly News on Thursday, less than two weeks before the Jan. 19 caucuses, the first contest of the Democratic nominating race. The tapes show Dr. Dean arguing that the lengthy caucus process in which neighbors gather to debate their preferences is inconvenient for ordinary people.

''Say I'm a guy who's got to work for a living, and I've got kids,'' he said on the show on Jan. 15, 2000. ''On a Saturday, is it easy for me to go cast a ballot and spend 15 minutes doing it, or do I have to sit in a caucus for eight hours?''

A moment later, he added, ''I can't stand there and listen to everyone else's opinion for eight hours about how to fix the world.'''

The excerpts shown on NBC also show Dr. Dean saying in December, 2000, ''George Bush is, I believe, in his soul a moderate,'' and adding about those thinking that Mr. Bush's presidency would be a one-term one, ''that is going to be a mistake.''

While Dr. Dean now describes Mr. Bush as ''the most radical right-wing president in my lifetime,'' he also frequently acknowledges that, until after Mr. Bush was elected, he believed his promise of moderation.

The broadcasting of the tape comes as Dr. Dean is in a fierce fight in Iowa with Representative Richard A. Gephardt, and his comments were a sharp contrast to those he makes daily on the campaign trail in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Now Dr. Dean regularly tells audiences that the Iowa caucuses represent the essence of American democracy.

[dkf]

2. The caucus was designed to keep power in the hands of the machine.

In fact the whole primary system was.

We need to chuck the whole thing.

[Breeze54]

7. "very white" M$M "seems to get the first say" !!

But I hear you!

Great post!! Well said!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Thank You!!

:kick: & Recommended

[Pooka Fey]

10. K&R

[joe_sixpack]

11. K & R

Most definitely

[conspirator]

12. We have to start by nationalizing the Federal Reserve

http://youtube.com/watch?v=b_6P7LoJVuk

[Truth2Tell]

13. Kick!

Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours