Letters to the Editor
pdx-Kirk
Published Letters: 8
-
Current Florida and Michigan vote neither fair nor accurate
[Read the article: Should Florida and Michigan vote again? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If these states decide to revote so be it. But I do not belive it would be fair to the campaigns that came and went already.
People speak of the "wrong" of not counting the votes. The voters in these staes knew they were participating in a beauty contest only. That makes it no more important than answering a phone pole. Sorry, but the time to get it right was before the election. The state democratic parties did not have to set these dates, they knew the consequences. The campaigns organized their efforts according to these rules. Fairness to the campaigns is being lost in this disscussion.
Imagine a Michigan election with all the candidates still in it. Edwards with his blue collar message and union support may have done well enough to gain delegates, cash and impetus to stay in the race longer. But he played fair and did not put his name on the ballot. Obama would have sparked higher turnout. (turnout was low since many voters saw the election as moot) African Americans and college types would have turned out in support. The texture of the whole race could have been different. Instead we have Clinton trumpeting a false victory and trying to gain an unfair result in her favor. I do not think this helps Clinton or the party look good.
It's similar in Florida. The candidates all pledged not to campaign there. Yet Clinton went there multiple times, supposedly just to fund raise. But that draws media her way and she knew it. The results would have been different if the candidates had all campaigned there. She may have gotten more votes ...or less...but no one will ever know. The Clinton victory in Florida is hollow.
New votes now would be better than unfairly seating the delegates from these inaccurate beauty contests. But what of the other candidates that never got fair opportunity and are not in the race anymore?
I feel the time has passed for these states. I think the best response is for voters in these states to be mad as hell with their leaders and never let them foul it up again.
-
What if the democratic primary system is not all that bad??
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Slow down, its supposed to be a long process. There is time to ask questions. Lots of pundits saying the Dem system is bad, broken and should be dumped. Is it really? How did it evolve? Is there nothing worthy here? Did Howard Dean actualy invent this system and therefor is responsible if you don't like the outcome? There is always room for improvement, but the system we have has had a long evolution that reflects many of the parties best thoughts and intentions. It has much to comend it.
The winner take all system of the Repubs has given them a nominee who has only one third of their popular vote. He was harshly treated by the party powerful and parts of the media. A month ago the pundits were telling us the Repubs were busy eating their own and destroying themselves. They now smile and hug and say they picked the best candidate. For the moment that gives them a modest temporary edge. So what? Its still March.
The Democratic party system is designed to help lesser known candidates run long enough to see if they have popular support. It prevents a big name candidate with early money and endorsments from being the only horse in the race. It works. It is much more small d democratic and representitive. It gives time for candidates to develop.
You say, "But it should not be so close by now!!" Would it be if Fl. and Mi had played by the rules? Quite possibly not! If they are allowed to change the rules now, the DNC will have no control of the thing in 2012.
You suggest, "Those who voted early may have changed their mind by now if they had the current information." Is this not the very nature of long primaries with successive votes over time? The stage gets set....the early states vote, the later states vote with the knowledge that came from the early states? The early states get to winnow the field, the later states get to dig in and develop the candidates? Why would you want to let early states re vote later?
"All 50 states at once!!" Stop that. Its impossible for a broad field to campaign in all states effectively without enormous funding. (Which they can't raise without a few early wins!) The 'All 50 states method' would never let anyone but the biggest funded name even be considered! Thats not Democratic.
"But now we have a virtual tie and we are no longer sure who is best for the General election". Hmmm, how could we design a system that could solve such potentials in the future? How about a group of experienced democrats? Ones who would vote their highest mind, based only on whats best for the short term AND long term of the Democratic party? Such delegates would not be needed in most years, but what an intelegent buffer to have available in extraordinary years!
The system we have is not perfect, (I favor a shorter time frame and primaries only open to Democrats and Idependants) But it is working. Calm your belly! It will produce a candidate with more popular appeal than the Republicans have. It will produce a candidate that is ready for the General Election. It will produce the candidate that helps the Party the most, now and tommorrow.
Enjoy!