A year ago, no one thought we would be here today – in a place where our democracy is being invigorated on a weekly basis by a still undecided presidential primary between two incredible, barrier-shattering candidates. For people of my generation, this is our first real glimpse of national democracy in America.
Beginning in 2000, it has been clear that only the votes of a handful of voters in a handful of states really matter in determining the president of all of the United States. In 2000 and 2004, we had a presumptive nominee for both parties after no more than five states had voted. The rest of the country would get to choose between those nominees at least.
Not exactly. In both 2000 and 2004, the election was not fought in California or Alabama or Massachusetts or Texas. It was fought in a handful of “battleground” or “swing” states. Ninety percent of the election was decided before the campaign even started.
Faced with these realities, it was perfectly reasonable for a citizen to become cynical about the value of voting and the likelihood that there voice could make any difference. In Texas in 2004, what was the point of a vote for John Kerry when all of that state’s electoral votes had already been tallied in permanent ink for George Bush?
Which brings us to the beauty of the primaries this year. Our democracy has been given a shot of Red Bull by a combination of three unexpected characteristics of the campaign that we ought to try to replicate in the future.
First, margins matter. The most intriguing thing about the Democratic delegate dash is that it does not just matter who wins a state, but by how much. The idea, solidified by the electoral college system, that a state that is decided 51% to 49% ought to apportion its influence (winner takes all) the same way that a state decided 80% to 20% is ridiculous and makes a mockery of the very concept of democracy.
Second, politics is local. The delegate rush has also forced the candidates to look not too closely at statewide numbers, but instead to focus on district-by-district results. Because there may be delegates to gain even in a state that is certain to be lost (and even more so because the number of delegates may depend upon margin of victory), candidates are wise to campaign everywhere. Sure, battleground states (or districts) will get more attention, but a system where a Republican candidate has no reason to campaign in California is surely a broken one. I witnessed this first hand in Memphis – although Barack Obama trailed significantly in statewide polls, he opened a Memphis campaign office, carried the county with 70% of the vote and picked up delegates.
Finally, democracy requires participation. The system we all know and loathe discourages participation. Because only votes in early primary and battleground states truly matter, what is the incentive for citizens to invest their votes and more importantly, their mental energy in a campaign? What is the point of even following politics or considering different positions on important issues when the direction of our leadership will be determined primarily by Iowans and Floridians? What the surprising length of the nominating contests has shown is that people will participate and will invest their minds in the political process when they perceive that their votes matter.
There is nothing more troubling to democracy than voter impotence because the (often correct) belief that a vote is meaningless encourages voter apathy and disengagement from governance. Our Constitution is clear that the government serves only at the pleasure of we, the people. Too often that seems to not be the case, but in the last eight weeks, we have gotten a glimpse of several characteristics that can improve our democratic process. Of course, all is not quite perfect – there remains the specter of superdelegates undoing all of the democratic enthusiasm generated by these primaries.
This year, we have stumbled upon a system of national democracy that is maintaining voter engagement across the country and for an extended period of time. As we look beyond November, the country would be well served by building upon this stumbled-upon blueprint to reimagine American democracy for the 21st century.
2 comments:
your article omits a supporting fact to your argument: the states of florida and michigan moved their primaries up in order to make their votes relevant in light of past primary seasons when the nominee was already decided by mid february. however, had the states kept their primaries in their normal dates on the calendar, those two primaries would have played a much larger and influential role than ever before (rather than becoming the irrelevant no-delegate elections that they were).
the process worked so well this time around that 48 of the states are relevant all the way to the end. which is how it should work. too bad for florida and michigan's impatience.
A very intriguing look at a very complex question. Our best hope is to spead grobal wealth more democratically through global economics. Unfortunately it will take too long for the wealth to trickle down to Enrique.
Post a Comment