exc-56e1aba307eaa0941d038d8c
So we’ve definitely got a very interesting Primary in the United States this year.
Normally, conventions are big vanity shows in which everyone stands under confetti, listens to some speeches, and eats little sandwiches with the crust taken off.
But… maybe not this year. The DNC race is pretty tight and while Clinton is likely to keep the lead, she might not achieve the 60% of bound delegates necessary to be immune to Superdelegates potentially swinging the nomination to Sanders. In the GOP field, there’s a fairly good chance the primary will go to a brokered convention. March 15th will be a big determinant of the likelihood here.
We go over all the dirty details in our latest Reconsider podcast episode, “Delegate Math.” Definitely worth a listen.
This year seems to be one in which “the establishment” is at war with insurgent candidates Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. They’re both pretty far behind on political endorsements, yet have a lot of staying power.
The gap between internal party support and public support is actually fairly unique this year. It’s also led to some unhappiness: many Sanders and Trump supporters accuse establishment interests of deliberately trying to undermine the will of the people.
Something to consider: have you found yourself calling for Party X to stop an insurgent candidate, while also grumbling at Party Y’s efforts to do the same?
Amid questions about party interference, something else to consider: should “the party” have some say in who it endorses for President? American parties besides the Republicans and Democrats simply don’t have primary elections–they just have conventions to pick the nominee. In some European countries like Germany, there are no primaries–the party leaders pick who they want to back in the election. In most parliamentary systems like the UK, Spain, Canada, etc, elected MPs choose who their Prime Minister will be. Are these systems flawed, or do they have some merit? Is there some consistent principle that should govern how primaries should be decided?
Ukrainian victories on the ground have been swift, dramatic, and devastating. And each win seems…
The Russians just got whipped. What the heck happened?
Mark Schauss is the host of Russian Rulers History and Battle Ground History. Known for…
https://play.acast.com/s/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62f43f685dc1ea00136539f2 Hot Updates Severodonetsk fell slowly as expected, but then Lysychansk fell quickly because Russian…
https://embed.acast.com/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62d0a6529385dd0012e405d1 Lots of ways we can split this. Much has been discussed about decoupling of…
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the…
View Comments
We used to simply have nominating conventions.... then we had a system where people could run, but the delegates could (and still can) change their mind. It used to be common for people to run as a "favorite son" specifically to horse trade for favors at the convention; they had no intention of actually being the nominee, but the ability to trade delegates for either party concessions or political favors down the road got them votes at home.
There is no perfect system. Doing it all on one day most likely results in no majority. Doing it the way we do it now often effectively disenfranchises those at the end; their votes often can't change the outcome. Simply sending delegates with issues to focus on (and not have primaries at all) can result in a candidate nobody feels any passion for, which I personally am fine with, but tends to annoy the party base.
The very best a democracy can offer is what its median voters want. Clearly, that is not working in the United States. Democracy might be the best system of government people have found so far, but, if so, we need to find another.
Do you think there are any countries where the democratic system is providing an approximation of what median voters want?
Or perhaps would an array of what people want--say, 10 parties in Congress to varying degrees--be a good outcome?
I think that in the other democracies that you mentioned, the party nominates a person for office then a general election is held. The difference in America is that only two parties have any traction. During the 2012 race, I believe, the nominee of the Green Party was arrested for daring to publicly announce her presence during the Presidential Debate. In France, I believe up to six or eight healthy sized political parties are in action. Here in America, there is only right or left, leaving out many complexities of belief or position. If you are pro-choice, you must be pro-union, even those two things really have nothing to do with each other. This two-party, left or right vote is the underlying issue in America democracy that needs to be fixed. Disagreeing on an issue, having a reasonable discussion to resolve a compromise position, can't even be happen here - people are too busy violently defending their party, even though most institutions, by virtue of their size, are very difficult to defend.
This is a really great point--it's almost as if our many "parties" are rolled up into two: the Democrats maybe have a Progressive and a Centrist party, etc.
I love your passion on this. Let me know if you'd ever like to write a guest post :)
relaxing sleep
new york
smooth jazz
outdoor cafe ambience
chill jazz