So the Christmas lights are down, the tree is but tinder, and now we finally enter that special time of year....Primary Season. Because if the American Democratic experiment doesn't seem eccentric enough, why not officially begin a campaigning season that has already gone on for a far too long 10 months before the ACTUAL ELECTION.
But I digress....obviously party primaries provide a litany of issues to discuss/dissect/poke fun at, so in order to avoid a sprawling, meandering tirade on how sick of the Republican field I am already (and it's not because I am right- or left-leaning; it is simply because I can't believe there is more than a year of coverage for multiple campaigns that say nothing, and of numerous candidates that are all “front-runners” at one time or another), I want to take a look at some numbers, and what they say about how distorted this whole process is.
Congratulations to Iowa Republicans (and anyone else who claimed to be so they could participate) for setting a new record turnout for your Jan. 4 caucus. According to both Bloomberg Businessweek and the Huffington Post, roughly 122,000+ Iowans got down for the GOP.
But as always with this kind of stuff, let's take a closer look. While the number was a record, it was only 19.9%* of registered Iowa Republicans, a decline from 21.1%* in 2008 – you know, back before Obama came in and ruined America so badly that it caused every last Republican to rise up in arms and thwart the Krazy Kenyan, a handful of conservatives to go to high schools/firehouses in dwindling numbers to try to figure out which old white guy (sorry Bachmann, you never really had a shot) would be most palatable to the rest of the country.
*(All numbers thanks to Businessweek.)
The numbers look even less impressive when extrapolated out to consider the entire voting populace of the Corn State (I know that's not it's real name, but you know if I say"corn" Iowa is immediately conjured). Those brave 122,000 “patriots” reflect just 5.4%** of the roughly 2,250,000** eligible voters in the state.
(**Numbers are from HuffPo “dahling”.)
Now it is true that by-and-large we Americans don't exactly come out in droves for elections, especially ones that aren't presidential. But consider that 61.6% (132.6 million) eligible voters cast a ballot in 2008 nationally for the election that actually counts in November, 5.4% looks pretty sad, especially with all the steaming and shrieking about how this whole country is going to hell in a biodiesel-fueled-hybrid-socialist-Obamacare-ambulance.
But what am I really driving at with all of this?
How ridiculous the importance of primaries are in the first place.
Mitt Roomey and Rick “disgusting name that shows how AWESOME/powerful the internet can be when people work together” COMBINED could only capture about 50% of the votes. Only about 60,000 folks got excited about these two guys. What kind of an endorsement is that when 300 million of us populate this country? So roughly .02% of Americans will influence the voting agenda for the rest of us.
News stations are going to beat this analysis to death, talking about all the new trends they can extrapolate out of data during the 6 pm show, just so the 6:30 show can talk about how the inverse of all those truths is actually what's going on.
So for the next 10 months we will get more and more of these exhibitions as the candidates talk about how foolish each other is, just to say how awesome their former opponent is once the weak get cut and try to remain relevant by issuing endorsements. We'll get some good, “Obama is a tool,” and “I am going to make America work again,” crap like somehow a rich old white guy is iconoclastic, particularly in politics.
And in the end little of it will matter because the way the system is set up is strictly to protect the vested interests of the two major political parties.
You want to make the political primaries interesting?
Want to make this whole long slog to Nov. 6 more fun?
DEATH TO THE PARTY PRIMARY!!!!
Let's allow all registered voters to participate in a primary, regardless of party affiliation (especially if you are like me and don't register with either band of thieves). Lets allow good, plural, moderate candidates to show their merit and possibly get elected without having to convince the far fringes of their parties that they are indeed crazy enough to deserve your vote (you know, 'cause fanaticism is such a stable base to go for political guidance).
Lets see what a field of all potential candidates might look like, and in the end, take the best two, regardless of party affiliation (obviously this becomes much more difficult when dealing with incumbency, but I didn't say I had all the answers; I just like to start the discussion).
In fact, we could look to California for a little guidance here (and not just because the Pacific Coast is beautiful and their former governor killed the Predator).
The great people of the Bear Republic approved an amendment to the state constitution that is such a wonderful kick in the pants to the entrenched parties I don't even want to paraphrase it.
According to the California Constitution, Article II, Section 5 (a):
“A voter-nomination primary election shall be conducted to select the candidates for congressional and state elective offices in California. All voters may vote at a voter-nominated primary election for any candidate for congressional and state elective office without regard to the political party preference disclosed by the candidate or the voter, provided that the voter is otherwise qualified to vote for candidates for the office in question. The candidates who are the top two vote-getters at a voter-nominated primary election for a congressional or state elective office shall, regardless of party preference, compete in the ensuing general election.”
“REGARDLES OF PARTY PREFERENCE”
Think about how that might shake up this boring old parade of everyone talking for 10 months but saying nothing, other than “the other guy sucks” of course.
This actually might introduce centrist candidates that appeal to more people, and that actually have reasoned ideas, and live the dirty word, compromise.
And much like those candidates, maybe we voters can get our heads screwed on right too. Instead of wailing away about how we will only vote for a person who agrees with EVERYTHING we do, we also realize that some compromise is needed, and a candidate who seems pragmatic and intelligent may be better than one who seems charismatic and an ideologue.
At the least you'll probably get more than 5% of your eligible voters to come out and pull a lever/press a button/hang a chad/cast a vote (and think of the boon for America's struggling gym-floor wax economy, plus giving all those nice old ladies who vaguely verify your voting status a chance to meet more of their communities before the bus takes them back to the home).
At best it would send a wave of terror through the Democratic and Republican parties so traumatizing they may even hold tightly to each other in a fearful embrace. (But definitely not in a gay way.)
While I understand the fear that the introduction of viable third- and fourth-party candidates might have on the field, potentially producing election winners who capture 34% of the vote or less, or introducing just as many crazies to the field as it weeds out, the only way to effect change in Washington is to force change on the electoral process that produces the cronyism in the swamp today.
But it seems to me that the only clear loser we have every election is us. This game of constantly pitting a Republican vs. a Democrat ensures that one or the other will always be in power. Sure it looks like each party plays to “win” every year on every issue, but really, they have both won by ensuring that no one else can get in the game.
No candidate will ever truly be transcendent if we can't escape the mire of the two-party system that bogs down the Beltway and every major election on the way there.
I thought the United States was boastful about being a land of opportunity and options? What does it say about those ideals if we have to pick between two half-baked, wholly unsatisfying people every time we vote in an election of national consequence? If we trumpet the validity of the concept of “American Exceptionalism”, why are our candidates always so thoroughly sub-par?
No comments:
Post a Comment