Recent columns in this space have reviewed the process, some complexities, and unique features of our quadrennial exercise of nominating our presidential candidates. This 2016 exercise has revealed issues of which most citizens have been blissfully unaware.
During most primary campaign seasons, apart from the mindless cliches of the media celebrities, little attention is paid, except by politicians, party members and political junkies.
This year is different. It might be tempting to go along with the out-of-touch media celebrities and attribute this difference merely to the two unusual candidates, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. But we have to look deeper than that. Why has Trump knocked out the well-funded traditional Republican establishment candidates? And how has a previously obscure senator from a small state battled one of the world's most famous and accomplished women to a near standstill?
It's not too much of a generalization to attribute this to the near total neglect of a vast number of ordinary Americans by the nation's rich and powerful, especially including the media and the politicians themselves. The media's near-exclusive focus is on the rich and powerful, and the upper middle class. And it's known that politicians spend a disproportionate amount of their time raising funds.
The Sanders and Trump phenomena, the result, not cause, of media malfeasance, have resulted in attention to the process of nomination that was largely ignored in the past, and to internal party issues that each must face.
Let's start with the issue of the Democratic "super delegates," criticized internally by Sanders and externally by Republicans. A case can be made either way, for or against. Sanders criticizes them for being "too establishment." Republicans criticize them for evidence that Democrats "are not listening to ordinary people."
Sure, the super delegates are people already holding office and, by definition, are "establishment." But in the delegate selection process, these politicians would be delegates anyway. Awarding them delegate status from the start simply opens up the process to lower level party activists who don't have to openly compete with elected officials to become delegates.
The Republican argument that super delegates "don't listen to the people" is bogus. In 2008, the unpledged super delegates were initially for Hillary Clinton, but switched to Barack Obama as he won primary elections and caucuses. Ironically, given earlier open warfare between "establishment Republicans" and Trump, if the Republicans had the equivalent of Democratic super delegates, Trump may never have become the nominee.
Another issue is the virtue of caucuses vs. primary elections. Twelve states and the American territories opt for the caucus system, and each have their own rules for how they operate their caucuses. For example, the Republicans and Democrats differ in how they operate the Iowa caucuses.
Both the caucus system and the primary elections, it is argued, bring forth the more dedicated party members and activists. It undoubtedly takes more dedication to attend a caucus on a wintry Iowa evening, for example, than it does to go to a voting booth in a primary election. But while primary elections may represent a broader viewpoint than caucuses, given the usually light turnout for primary elections, the differences may not be all that significant. It is the more dedicated party members that usually show up in either case.
Any difference between caucus results and primary results depends in part on the type of primary, whether it's "open" or "closed." The closed primary is just that - closed to other than voters who, depending on state rules, register or declare party affiliation. In some states, New York, for example, a voter has to register as a party member well in advance.
In states such as Wisconsin, the primary is open to all voters, and the voter does not have to declare allegiance to a specific party. The Republican and Democratic slates are printed on the same ballot. The voter can vote either slate but, of course, not both.
As the open primary opens it up to independent voters who are not party members and activists, results would tend to favor candidates less attached to a given party. It is thus that both Trump and Sanders generally favored open primaries.
A broader philosophical issue faced by both major parties is the extent to which delegate selection is based on popular vote, and/or by internal procedures focusing on party loyalists. Naturally, determination mainly according to popular vote is appealing. In practice, criticism notwithstanding, delegate selection generally coincides with popular vote. Many party activists who are not elected office-holders perform day-to-day unglamorous inside party work. Awarding delegate status to these activists is a way of rewarding them. This does not mean going against the popular vote as rules may bind them to a leading candidate not of their individual choice. It was the possibility of Ted Cruz attracting such delegates bound to Trump only on the first ballot that caused that tempest in a teapot a few weeks ago.
In my opinion, there is much to be said for different systems in different states at different times. It forces candidates to do their homework, perform under different scenarios and, especially in cases like Iowa and New Hampshire, to actually get out and talk to real people. The last thing I would want is a cookie cutter nation-wide primary that depended exclusively on yet another expensive television blowout.
That minority opinion and four bits will get me a cup of senior coffee at one of Monroe's fast food eateries.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
During most primary campaign seasons, apart from the mindless cliches of the media celebrities, little attention is paid, except by politicians, party members and political junkies.
This year is different. It might be tempting to go along with the out-of-touch media celebrities and attribute this difference merely to the two unusual candidates, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. But we have to look deeper than that. Why has Trump knocked out the well-funded traditional Republican establishment candidates? And how has a previously obscure senator from a small state battled one of the world's most famous and accomplished women to a near standstill?
It's not too much of a generalization to attribute this to the near total neglect of a vast number of ordinary Americans by the nation's rich and powerful, especially including the media and the politicians themselves. The media's near-exclusive focus is on the rich and powerful, and the upper middle class. And it's known that politicians spend a disproportionate amount of their time raising funds.
The Sanders and Trump phenomena, the result, not cause, of media malfeasance, have resulted in attention to the process of nomination that was largely ignored in the past, and to internal party issues that each must face.
Let's start with the issue of the Democratic "super delegates," criticized internally by Sanders and externally by Republicans. A case can be made either way, for or against. Sanders criticizes them for being "too establishment." Republicans criticize them for evidence that Democrats "are not listening to ordinary people."
Sure, the super delegates are people already holding office and, by definition, are "establishment." But in the delegate selection process, these politicians would be delegates anyway. Awarding them delegate status from the start simply opens up the process to lower level party activists who don't have to openly compete with elected officials to become delegates.
The Republican argument that super delegates "don't listen to the people" is bogus. In 2008, the unpledged super delegates were initially for Hillary Clinton, but switched to Barack Obama as he won primary elections and caucuses. Ironically, given earlier open warfare between "establishment Republicans" and Trump, if the Republicans had the equivalent of Democratic super delegates, Trump may never have become the nominee.
Another issue is the virtue of caucuses vs. primary elections. Twelve states and the American territories opt for the caucus system, and each have their own rules for how they operate their caucuses. For example, the Republicans and Democrats differ in how they operate the Iowa caucuses.
Both the caucus system and the primary elections, it is argued, bring forth the more dedicated party members and activists. It undoubtedly takes more dedication to attend a caucus on a wintry Iowa evening, for example, than it does to go to a voting booth in a primary election. But while primary elections may represent a broader viewpoint than caucuses, given the usually light turnout for primary elections, the differences may not be all that significant. It is the more dedicated party members that usually show up in either case.
Any difference between caucus results and primary results depends in part on the type of primary, whether it's "open" or "closed." The closed primary is just that - closed to other than voters who, depending on state rules, register or declare party affiliation. In some states, New York, for example, a voter has to register as a party member well in advance.
In states such as Wisconsin, the primary is open to all voters, and the voter does not have to declare allegiance to a specific party. The Republican and Democratic slates are printed on the same ballot. The voter can vote either slate but, of course, not both.
As the open primary opens it up to independent voters who are not party members and activists, results would tend to favor candidates less attached to a given party. It is thus that both Trump and Sanders generally favored open primaries.
A broader philosophical issue faced by both major parties is the extent to which delegate selection is based on popular vote, and/or by internal procedures focusing on party loyalists. Naturally, determination mainly according to popular vote is appealing. In practice, criticism notwithstanding, delegate selection generally coincides with popular vote. Many party activists who are not elected office-holders perform day-to-day unglamorous inside party work. Awarding delegate status to these activists is a way of rewarding them. This does not mean going against the popular vote as rules may bind them to a leading candidate not of their individual choice. It was the possibility of Ted Cruz attracting such delegates bound to Trump only on the first ballot that caused that tempest in a teapot a few weeks ago.
In my opinion, there is much to be said for different systems in different states at different times. It forces candidates to do their homework, perform under different scenarios and, especially in cases like Iowa and New Hampshire, to actually get out and talk to real people. The last thing I would want is a cookie cutter nation-wide primary that depended exclusively on yet another expensive television blowout.
That minority opinion and four bits will get me a cup of senior coffee at one of Monroe's fast food eateries.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
