Our Undemocratic Primaries and How to Democratize Them

As the long and tedious presidential primary season draws to a merciful close, what have American citizens learned about the democratic nature of the process and why should they care?
Americans should have learned that their primary process is undemocratic. By “democratic” I mean governmental rule on the principle of equality. Equality occurs when all votes are given the same weight. Based on this standard we can judge which 2008 primaries were and were not democratic.

The Republican Primaries

The Winner-Take-All Primary

The Republican primaries are the most undemocratic as the party has a winner-take-all system. In effect, a vote only counts if it is cast for the winning candidate. Some may say that should be no problem for that is how electoral votes are counted. However, no responsible mind will claim that the Electoral College is democratic. Ironically, the Electoral College is a constitutional impediment to a democracy of “one person, one vote.”
A winner-take-all system ignores and gives no value to those votes that are cast for the losing candidate(s). The winner-take-all system tends to create a winner in the early part of the primary process and frequently results in the voters of many states having neither voice nor vote in deciding who is to be a Republican presidential candidate.

The Caucus

The primary caucus is undemocratic for several reasons. The caucus does not give an opportunity for all persons to vote. Every state with a caucus system, in effect, discourages thousands of voters from participation. For example, in a caucus there is no absentee voting which provides an alternative way to vote for those voters unavailable or not inclined to vote in a caucus. The caucus system also applies peer pressure to voters lacking the secret ballot and discourages voters who may lack the time, transportation, or physical ability to attend one.

The Democrats

The Proportionate Primary

The Democrats deserve praise for having proportionate voting. This means that every vote counts in determining the proportion of delegates awarded to each candidate—winners and losers. So, if a candidate has 49 % of the votes, he or she will receive 49% of the delegates (or the number of delegates which corresponds closest to 49% of the votes).

The Caucus.

Democratic caucuses are no more democratic than Republican caucuses.

Super Delegates. The Super Delegate is an elitist concept and an affront to democracy. In assuming that leaders of the Democratic Party are entitled to be uncommitted delegates completely independent of the primary electoral process, a mockery is made of the principles of equality and “one person, one vote.”

How the People Can Democratize the Primaries

Isn’t it ironic that the world’s oldest democracy lacks a democratic process in the primary selection of its presidential candidates for the general election? Shouldn’t Americans care whether the primaries are fair? Of course they should–if they care about democracy. If we, the people, give up democracy, we give up our right to power. Without political power, we are lost to the whims of tyranny.
Some might say that little can be done by the people to reform the primary system as primaries are controlled by the Democratic and Republican national parties. The parties, in turn, give latitude to the states’ respective parties to decide what kind of primary to have and when it should occur. Congress could pass a law regarding how, when, and what kind of primaries should be held, but the likelihood of Congress passing a law on such a politicized issue is non-existent.
What can the people do? The people should provide the rules and conditions necessary for holding presidential primaries. How? By a constitutional amendment proposed at a constitutional convention. (I didn’t suggest that the solution would be easy.). If Congress will not act, there is no other way to accomplish presidential electoral reform.
Of course, in order for a constitutional convention to occur, the concurrence of 2/3 of the state legislatures is required. The legislatures will not apply to Congress for a constitutional convention just to pass one amendment. There will be other proposed amendments at a constitutional convention—including abolition of the Electoral College, more federal control over presidential elections, elimination of the anti-democratic filibuster, elimination of the presidential veto and the elimination of private financing for public elections. (Nor did I imply that the solution would be simple.)
In conclusion, we the people, not political parties, must make the hard decisions regarding the democratization of our primary elections. A constitutional convention will not be easy or simple, but it will be necessary if we are to have a meaningful representative democracy.

Posted on 14th May at 3:03 pm

 Email This Post