Our electoral system is not pretty, but it generally works pretty well. However, open primaries (those where any registered voter can vote for anyone in any party primary), hurt and do not help the process. Remember, our the general election of our Presidents is not by popular vote. Forget about the electoral college, there are all kinds of institutional and practical constraints on anyone outside of a party nominee mounting, let along succeeding, in a national campaign for office. And I like it that way. After the field on both sides gets winnowed down, most people vote not for the candidate of their dreams, but of the better of the two, if not the lesser of two evils. It has worked fairly well. And during the primaries, winning the party nomination has driven each nominee toward ideals and electability has driven them toward moderation and compromise. But in States like Michigan where Democrats may freely, easily and without consequence vote in the Republican primary, the process gets prostituted. Since there is only one person running for the Democratic nomination, registered Democrats not only have no procedural impediments to voting in the Republican primary, they have no incentive no to. A Democrat's vote is worthless in their own primary, but can damage the Republican candidate that is most likely to defeat their boy. I suppose, since the Republicans tend to have more common sense, pragmatism and are less purely ideological in their decision making, the open primary process works more for them then against them. However, if I were a Santorum backer in Michigan, I would not vote for him today for one reason. He solicited Democrats to cross over to defeat Romney because he knows Romney has a better chance of beating Obama. Persuade the people of your party that you have a better vision, are more in line with their beliefs and that you can beat Obama, but do not try to win at the cost of weakening the party. I find it odious, though I know it is part of the system today. I do not think it will matter and may have a backlash effect, but the Michigan primary is clearly up for grabs so who knows.
3 comments:
I can't really argue with what you've said here; I'm just sick & tired of having to vote for the evil of two lessers.
Well said.
"After the field on both sides gets winnowed down, most people vote not for the candidate of their dreams, but of the better of the two, if not the lesser of two evils. It has worked fairly well."
John F. Kennedy.
Lyndon Johnson.
Richard Nixon.
Jimmy Carter.
Ronald Reagan (the best of a very bad lot, who was not all that, nor even a whole bag of chips).
Bush the Elder.
Bill Clinton.
Bush the Younger.
Barack Obama.
Yeah. I can see it works pretty well.
Post a Comment