The ultimate expression of white privilege is the closed loop electoral system.
Last edited Tue Aug 25, 2015, 02:51 PM - Edit history (2)
The first two states to vote in the so-called "primaries" to weed out the pretenders from the contenders in a two party political stranglehold are Iowa and New Hampshire.
The demographics of these two States are as follows (2010 census):
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Other Asian 1
White: 1,236,050 (93.9%); Black: 15,035 (1.1%); American Indian: 3,150 (0.2%); Asian: 28,407 (2.2%); Other race: 12,062 (0.9%); Two or more races: 21,382 (1.6%); Hispanic/Latino: 36,704 (2.8%).
In fact then, about 4 million white Euro-Americans and about 200,000 African-Americans and others are the keepers of the gate to the White House. For the TWO parties.
That is ludicrously non-Democraric beyond reason. What if the first two voting States were not the 40th and 45th whitest in America...representing exactly 2% of the American population but were instead in Mississippi and Alabama or Maryland, etc? Even Florida or Alabama or Texas...you know, where tens of millions of Americans who get little to no say in the whole primary electoral process live....one neighbourhood in one of the major cities of any of these States has more African Americans than Iowa and New Hampshire combined.
Who would the politicians and mass media have to pander to then and how much different would the politics have to be? Would a shift from political and media pandering to a relative handful of Fox crazed evangelicals in all-white bread little slices of America make a difference to American elections and debate? Damn right it would!
Which is why it must never be discussed....what are you even thinking, messing with tradition, Fred Sanders? This is America!
Of course it was all a just a strange historical accident and happy for whites coincidence that is so awesomely "traditional" it can not possibly be changed, ya see!
The ultimate expression of white privilege is the privilege of Euro-Americans exploiting their ""tradition" by speaking for months and years in the endless campaign cycle of the wants and needs and hysterical evangelical fears of these 3.8 million white folks, and white folk only.
The system is rigged, my friends, Iowa and New Hampshire as the first primary States are as effective as whips and balls and chains to suppress and marginalize the issues that effect African-Americans and minorities....and I repeat it is no accident.
I understand the GOP will never change their primary system or rules, but what is up with the Democratic Party? The funny thing is the entire primary system is not law, it is just a bunch of political Party rules....could be changed by a simple Party resolution!
The math don't lie. The system is rigged. The first order of the rigged system is to rig it against minorities...and that was no accident of history, my friends, that was and is the modern version of systemic political slavery.
Actual lynchings may not be all that fashionable today, but electoral lynching is pandemic.
I have figured out why Iowa and New Hampshire are such a tradition with either party.
I don't know why those two states were chosen but it was decades ago. I'd like Delaware and Oklahoma to go first. One heavy Democratic state and one republican state that are both more diverse and still affordable for the candidates to campaign.
no accident, and the resultant mass media coverage of issues - whenever personalities are not at the top - unrelated to the concerns of African Americans is the natural consequence.
But it doesn't fit with Obama's election. It has been suggested that all the primaries be on the same day, but that would tilt things even more in favor of the wealthy candidates, and wipe out any chance for a grassroots candidate. One way to change things would be to make the primaries proportional, instead of winner-take-all, and this would lead to brokered conventions, where minority delegates could get together and exert some influence over who got the nomination. But the two major parties do not like brokered conventions. They want to appear strong and decisive, and that means going into the convention with the nominee already locked up.
Moving up primaries has been discussed. Several states moved up their primaries in the 2000s. I remember a speech by the Governator about it. The problem is NH keeps moving theirs even earlier - its a NH law! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary
Its a state thing, not a party thing (although I'm sure the parties make their preferences known.) I concur with your assessment of the results, and would add that the undue influence of these two basically rural states promotes disenfrachisement not only of PoC, but anyone whose concerns differ from the concerns of Iowa and NH. Many other methods of voter suppression and disenfranchisement focused on limiting the influence of PoC exist around the country.
Each year, all the candidates go to Iowa and include all kinds of pro-agriculture proposals. Once they leave Iowa, they hardly speak of them again. Each year, they try to out-folksy each other in Iowa. These gestures aren't genuine, and aren't meant for PoC, nor Silicon Valley, nor CEOs, nor writers, artists, cashiers, etc. I'd call the early primary state phenomenon rural privelege because there are millions of white Americans who could care less aboutthe issues that get votes in IA and NH.
Those facts have been highlighted in the past yet we still can't get it changed. What drives me crazy about Iowa and New Hampshire being gatekeepers is they rarely predict the eventual president.
The election system has way too many formal and informal traditions in it. All they end up doing is suppressing the vote.
and there's no way that the Democratic Party would allow those states to replace Iowa or New Hampshire as the first states in the Dem primary. Wayyy too many good old boys and gals for that.
HAWAII for the first state for the Democratic primary!! Who's with me???!