A Victory for Party Politics
But a loss for those of us who feel our two-party system needs an overhaul. The quote that best sums up why I think our current system needs some major changes.
Democrat Norma Hart, a 73-year-old retired schools psychiatrist, said, "Some people think the party system is evil, but I don't. If there are no primaries, how would we know who was good?"
Yes, that's right, in what signals a death knell for critical thinking all over New York City, apparently we need to be told who's good. Heaven forfend we should have to actually research candidates' stances on issues and their backgrounds and, gasp, come to a decision for ourselves. It's so much easier when someone else can tell you who's good.
The trust in the parties to tell us who is good is naive, at best. Most primaries are reflections of who the power brokers in the parties want to see in office for their own reasons, not who is the best candidate.
It's seldom that I agree with Mikey on anything, but I'm right behind him on this one. The stranglehold that the two major parties have on this country is detrimental to it. They have become voices for special interest groups, bought by whomever can offer them the best deal. They'll sell out their base if they believe that another group can get them elected. These are not people out to represent our best interests, but to represent their own best interests. Doing away with party affiliations would be one way to at least make politics accessible to people who otherwise don't have a hope of getting on the ballot, because no party will support them.
Comments
And from the ninth circus court, the no party primary system in Washinton was ruled unconstitutional because the PARTY'S right to choose their candidates was being trampled by the will of the individual.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001729991_webprimary15.html
As Gilbert Gottfried says "What the F&^K?" (yeah I love the 80's)
The people of Washington like the blanket primary. Party big shos didn't because they couldn't always ramrod their fortunate son through to the general election.
One option the court will allow is for people to continue to vote in the blanket party style, but the parties have the right to not count votes cast by unregistereed or other party registered voters.
Since when did parties gain rights that trumped those of the individual?
In spite of the results in California (a boob groper replacing a boob) you saw democracy working better than it has recently in cali. No primary, just a general free for all. Sure the kooks came out of the wood-work, but there were choices on the ballot that were better than the party picked Davis and Simon.
I'ld be willing to bet that if dem party big shots had not pressured other dems to not run any number of dems could have given the groper a run for his money, possibly won (Boxer, Feinstein Panetta...). At least one of them would have even been more fiscally conservative than I expect annuld to be. Which is what that state really needs. A serious pol that can make the tough budget balancing choices. (Panetta)
And turnout was higher too - 60% for an off cycle election. That was the highest gubernatorial turnout since 82's general gubernatorial election. (70% in 82. It was 50.7% in 2002).
Posted by: Justin | November 5, 2003 12:05 PM
I must have missed the part in the Constitution where political parties were given any rights. How nice. Fortunately the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned court ever.
Posted by: Lesley | November 5, 2003 10:25 PM
What is unfortunate is the fact that the bigger third party will not consider brokering their votes to the two national parties. They could get a lot more influence and grow in the mean time.
But parties like the Greens and the libertarians feel the majors are too corrupt (and they are right) but until they can challenge them one on one they need to use the influence they have to make changes in the way the parties do business.
Posted by: Rick DeMent | November 6, 2003 12:35 PM
I don't think the 9th circus will be overturned on this one. They are following a ruling made in 2000 about California's blanket primary, once again citing party rights to choose their own candidates. I think it follows a similar twist of logic used in Luisiana. They twist freedom of association to fit the ruling. If people were truly free to associate then I could associate with, for example, the repubs for gov, the dems for senate, the libertarians for dog catcher ....
(GOP, Dems and sadly the Libertarians filed the suit in Washington overturning the blanket primary)
No wait the Luisiana system is a blanket primary and the top two vote getters advance to the general. The Center for Voting and Democracy derides the Luisiana system. They claim that moderates split their votes on a series of moderate candidates while extreme right and left advance because they retain their core voters by not facing another candidate with similar viewpoints (David Duke as the cited example).
Scalia claims blanket primaries are "forcing political parties to associate with those who do not share their beliefs." Allowing people to pick and choose the candidates who best represent your own political views without regard for party affiliation is now forcing association with others who don't share your beliefs?
Once again "What the F$*K?"
I would say party registration required primaries is the form that forces association with others who don't share the same beliefs. I would williningly vote for Butch Otter in the primaries. (closest thing to a libertarian that is electable in Idaho.) I would rather wipe my ass with the ballot than vote for Craig. Ditto for Bush, the self proclaimed conservative who has delivered government growth rates exceeding every president since LBJ.
Posted by: Justin | November 6, 2003 01:32 PM
In theory Question 3 might have been nice. In practice the revision would have been another gift for the rich and Repubs. No thanks.
Posted by: Elayne Riggs | November 6, 2003 03:45 PM