Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:20 AM Dec 2012

The Problem with Our Current Primary System

A common argument by Centrist Dems on this board is that, if progressives want more representation, then progressives need run for office. Sounds logical on paper but in practice, the decks are stacked against anyone other than who the Party Bosses have already pre-selected.

My first clue to how all this works was in the 2003/2004 Presidential primaries in California. At the time, I was an enthusiastic and active supporter of Howard Dean. I also live in a purple section of California which is relevant to the subject. Let’s just say the state and national Democratic Parties can only find us using Google Maps. They certainly don’t EVER come to our neck of the woods. When Dean was getting HUGE, and I mean HUGE support all over the state (I know, I was all over the state campaigning) and Kerry was getting almost none, all of a sudden the Party Bosses, State and National, descended upon us. They wanted to know WHY Dean was so popular, what could “we” do to get more people to support Kerry (who had just voted “yes” on the IWR), etc. Iow, they were INTERVENING in what should have been a party-neutral activity. Later on, there was an ad in the early primary states comparing Dean with Osama bin Laden that did NOT come from the Republican party. Then, miraculously, there was a uni-directional mike on Dean which picked up ONLY Dean and NOT the audience, then played it on a loop over and over and over again and labeled it the “Dean Scream.” Wonder how that happened?

The other problem, of course, is that primaries are held in such as way as to give disproportional representation to the early primary states and often establishing candidates before the rest of the country even gets a chance to vote. The system was purposely set up so the parties could establish a candidate early on in order to prepare for the General Election. In other words, the system was set up for expediency sake and not for the sake of the electorate and a true Democratic process.

IF the primary process were to run UNIMPEEDED by the Democratic Party, AND, all primaries were held on the same day, all other things being equal, the primaries would absolutely be a legitimate solution to get more progressives elected. As it stands though, the deck is stacked against any candidate who chooses to run outside of the Party ideology leaving us with the milquetoast “centrists” candidates/representatives who will go along with the Party, no matter how badly the poor and middle class are decimated.

If we want change, I believe we need to start by changing the current primary process.


13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
1. It's a difficult problem!
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:51 AM
Dec 2012

But I think it will be fixed by the grass roots. The 99% is beginning to be in enough pain that they'll start using their heads.

By any normal standard, Democrats should have gotten crushed last month - after all, they've led us for years and we're still in a depression. But they won, because Americans realized that as awful as today's Democrats are, the Republicans are horrific. That's a more-reasoned thought process than we've had in any election cycle for the last 30 years, usually it's just knee-jerk.

(Actual) change is coming, I think.

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
3. I hope you're right, Manny.
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:05 AM
Dec 2012

Both aspects of the current system are deeply entrenched and it will be a long, hard-fought battle indeed in order to change it.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
7. Yep. If we want change, we have to continue to make it ourselves, because conservatives
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:22 PM
Dec 2012

and their beloved 1% masters are going to fight progressive change every step of the way. The Democratic party primary system is one way that the conservative flying monkeys of the Military Industrial Complex establishment keep the 1% safe from democracy.

Information, communication, and the internet are our best weapons for negating the lies, propaganda, stupidity, corruption, and authoritarian needs of conservatives and conservatism. We have just recently killed off Reaganism with information and truth.

Before we had widespread internet, conservatives could use TV media and AM radio as a means of propaganda to brainwash enough of the population to maintain the status quo of the Military Industrial Complex. Now, the internet is our means of countering their disinformation program.

We see conservatives on this board (and everywhere else) repeatedly using the most awful and transparent bullshit propaganda to discourage the proliferation of progressive Democrats, progressive activism, progressive activists, and support of progressive activist groups, such as Occupy and Anonymous. The thing is, most people can see through their disingenuous bullshit, because now we have the ability to immediately and directly expose it for what it is. Not to mention that they make such shameless fools of themselves that it is embarrassing to watch.

Conservatives and conservatism get totally exposed as fraudulent when exposed in the light of information.

Their only option for survival now is to find a way to control the flow of information on the internet, and then institute it. And this is one reason why they hate Anonymous, wikileaks, Julian Assange, etc and are smearing Julian Assange, etc., on a daily basis. As long as we have independent citizen's watchdog individuals and collectives on the net, we will have a means of exposing the lies of the conservatives, and a means to struggle to keep the internet open and free, in order that it may continue to provide us with a free flow of information and communication that is not controlled and altered by wealthy private interests and their conservative flying monkeys.

This is one huge reason that, IMO, Anonymous is so very important at this time history.

I really like this quote from one of H20 Man's DU essays ~

"Keep on fighting the Good Fight, my forum friends. This is a unique period in our history. And no state or federal official or agency is going to “save” the United States. But we will. Believe it."

“Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” ~ Jefferson




Recursion

(56,582 posts)
2. The current generation of leaders still hurt from McGovern
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:56 AM
Dec 2012

Which is why the Democratic party has in general more institutional controls over nominations than the GOP does (though I expect that will change in the coming years as the GOP gets tired of not taking the Senate).

Ruby the Liberal

(26,219 posts)
5. As a fellow Deaniac, I am with you - but
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:29 AM
Dec 2012

the challenge is in the money. At the primary stage, the candidates don't have the cash to wage a full frontal election bid in 50 states. Money like that doesn't start rolling in until AFTER we have settled on a nominee.

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
6. I understand the problem.
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:38 AM
Dec 2012

But I think we could counter that in three ways:

1) Conduct all primaries on the same day,
2) prohibit the parties (somehow???) from getting involved in any race until after the candidate is established, and
3) mount grassroots efforts (we did it with Dean -- until 2003, no one had ever heard of him) in all 50 states for each challenger.

I'm open to suggestions but I'm just fed up with the current closed system which leaves too many out of the primary, and, therefore, the decision-making process of establishing candidates for statewide and national elections.

Ruby the Liberal

(26,219 posts)
9. It would have to be later in the year than it is now.
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:43 PM
Dec 2012

Primaries are nasty, but they flush out stuff that we need to know before we vote. Cases in point - people like John Edwards and Herman Cain. Lots of grassroot support - and lots of unknown (early on) baggage.

If we all voted in January 2008, we could have ended up with an Edwards ticket, and we know what happened over the summer on that one. I believe the drawn out primary process allowed us to dodge a bullet on that one and forced him out of the race.

 

Mel Content

(123 posts)
11. most candidates don't have the resources for a 50 state same day primary.
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:01 PM
Dec 2012

instead of one national primary day- the country could be split into five or 6 geographic regions, with all the states in one region having their primaries on the same day, and each region would have a different day, 4-6 weeks apart. I would also alter the order in which each region votes in each election year- so that the same states aren't always going first or last.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
8. Excellent post.
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:52 PM
Dec 2012

This is an important issue, thank you for bringing it up.

I hope it gets a great deal more attention now and in the future.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
12. This fellow Deniac agrees with you!
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:12 PM
Dec 2012

A vote for Dean in the MN Caucus was the first vote I ever cast (I turned 18 that spring).

Currently the primaries are set up to be manipulated by the Establishment and their buddies in the MSM, the same buddies who pulled the "Dean Scream" BS.

IMO presidential primaries should be a national popular vote election that takes place over a whole week in August.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Problem with Our Curr...