The primary is where real democracy happens

[CTLawGuy]

A lot of people miss the point of the Hackett/Brown fiasco.

the point is not that Hackett is more or less progressive than Brown, the point is that the party should not have interfered and should have let the Democratic base decide who challenges Mike DeWine.


The primaries are the most important part of democracy.

A general election is the choice between two candidates, usually one you hate and the other you somewhat like. Usually you vote against the one you don't like.

That's not democracy, that's choosing the lesser of two evils.

Democracy is figuring out who those two candidates are. Democracy is evaluating a bunch of candidates in the primary and having a real discussion about what a party stands for.

People who have similar views within a party will gather behind representative candidates. Our electoral system is set up such that a 2 party system naturally arises, and out of necessity, people of divergent views must unite together under one of the two parties. the primary is when the groups deliberate over which of them will be the "ruling" faction and represent the party in the general.

The primary is when the people matter most, when each person gets a chance to back the person they most admire. People thus gain a sense of power and influence in the system. Because the candidates come from the wishes of the people in the primary, elected officials represent the people.

When a party interferes in a primary by favoring one candidate over another, the people lose their ability to participate in this great deliberation. Candidates then represent powerful party bosses and the people are left in the shell of democracy that is a general election, forced to vote against the guy they don't like.

How can we say this is a government by the people, of the people and for the people, if the party bosses restrict who the people can choose,whether by decree or influence?


The party exists to facilitate the choosing of the candidate by the base and to get the choice elected.

[madfloridian]

1. That is it exactly. It is about getting to choose your candidate.

Not about left or right or middle or Hackett or Brown.

[The Magistrate]

2. Not So, Sir

The primary is a recent innovation, and any analysis of its results must declare them mixed at best. Political parties got on without them very well for a long time. Their results are very often destructive in the general election: they frequently profuce disasterous cnadidates who have no broad appeal, they generally provide a good deal of fodder for the enemy's general election campaign when closely contested, and they frequently consume great quantities of money that leave the victorious contender in one short of funds in the cloing weeks of the general election.

The idea that "party bosses" select unpopular candidates that people do not like is more than nine-tenths myth. A Party leader has every incentive to support a candidate who is likely to win an election, and generally has some practical experience of what is involved in doing so. This will tend towards their selecting candidates who are indeed widely popular with the Party rank and file, and appealing to the general electorate.

[rockymountaindem]

4. Excellent and interesting points, Magistrate n/t

[incapsulated]

5. Your argument would have a lot more weight

If the current group of king-makers had anything other than a record of losing.

In addition, just because a process is new, does not make it inferior. Especially on the local level, where those who engage in the primaries are the most involved in their party and their communities.

Other than that, I think most voters prefer the process where they decide who will represent them. Even within that process there are machinations behind the scenes constantly trying to effect their decisions. The last thing we need in a country that has less than 50% participation in their own elections is a system that continually engenders feelings of disenfranchisement and powerlessness. Unless you like the idea of a tiny minority of a voting class deciding the direction of a powerful country, directed by a handful of backroom insiders, who haven't demonstrated much concern for the country or the party they belong to.

[The Magistrate]

7. And Yet, Ma'am

The proportion of registered voters coming to the polls was higher in those bad old days before the primary system became widespread.

What you call people who "are the most involved in their parties and communities" other people might call party insiders, kingmakers, and busy-bodies, and see no reason whatever to supos ethey were generally representative of the communities in which they reside. In speaking of local primaries, you are in fact describing something that takes place within a very restricted group, and which therefore cannot properly be called more representative than the typical old smoke-filled room: it is the operation of an elite, and the only difference is that you may think it an elite more congenial to you than some other elite. Local primaries notoriously have the lowest turn out of just about any form of election.

Primaries in large jurisdictions are indistinguishable from general elections in their processes. The amount of money required to run effectively narrows the field to those who enjoy access to funds and wide recognition before the contest begins; they are no more open than a country club golf course.

[incapsulated]

11. OK...

"The proportion of registered voters coming to the polls was higher in those bad old days before the primary system became widespread."

Are you blaming the lack of voter participation on the primary system? Because that is quite a stretch of logic, unless you have some evidence. I would presume, without evidence myself, that the lack of primary participation has decreased alongside voter participation in general. Participation in local races can drop through the floor because of nothing more than a rainy day. I don't think that we should dispense with the process because of the lack of commitment of voters, we need to give them reasons to vote and make their participation more convenient (like a national holiday).

When I speak of those engaged in the primary process, I speak of those people like myself, who bother to inform themselves about the candidates, the issues and their party. I don't consider myself a busybody or a kingmaker. I have no problem with closed primaries, myself. We live in a party system, but the party should represent it's members not hand down directives on how to vote. Such a system will only lead to the most committed to both the party and to democratic elections in general to drop away, which is a very bad sign for the future of participation by the remaining voters, unless something entirely new is created.

I never implied that running a campaign in either a primary or a general election was easy or cheap. I don't know how that got into the discussion but I am convinced that without real election reform our system may well be headed for certain failure in any case. However, when it comes to Hackett in particular, the issue of backroom maneuvers such as drying up funds to drive out a candidate is another story. Most people would be rightly offended by this, although it goes on without their knowledge. Hackett was just one of the very few who would talk about it.



Edit to add: lol, nevermind, I'm getting sleepy and not reading right!

[The Magistrate]

13. It Had Seemed To Me, Ma'am

That you were tending towards the view that primaries increased the engagement of people in political avctivities, and action by party leadership drove them away, hence the observation seemed apt. One way in which emphasis on primaries might act to reduce turnout at the polls is by prolonging the campaigning season, and making elections less of an exceptional thing that captures attention. Most other countries have pretty short and sharp campaign seasons, and there may well be some connection with the intesity of turnout.

Again, the idea that the leadership of a party does not reflect and represent its membership strikes me as mere assertion, and one that no one bothers to even attenmpt to demonstrate to be fact. It certainly does not seem self-evident to me. The fact that a party leader sets a course different than my preference, or yours, is insufficient to demonstrate it, for it may well be neither of us reflects the views of the majority of the party's membership, and if it were the case that we did not, then a course we desired would not be reflective or representative at all.

Similarly, why people comitted to a party would be affronted by its leadership performing its function and setting a direction and leading, and respond by dropping away from it, is unclear to me. It would seem to me people committed to a party would be those most ready to respond favorably and support the course of the party leadership, and those less committed to the party the ones most likely to display an unenthusiastic and disaffected response.

[incapsulated]

18. Actually, I think it is exactly the dissatisfaction with party leadership

Which can be blamed, in part, for the lack of participation in party politics in america and the increase of those registered as "independents".

But I didn't mean to imply that the primary process was a motivator for involvement. Perhaps I view it as one of the last vestiges left of true participatory democracy. So I defend it, even as I see it corrupted and lose it's meaning. Much as I view the entire process in danger even as a participate in it. I understand the argument that the process can be shortened (although I do not like to make comparisons to other countries with different systems, geographies, populations etc.) but as someone who believes in the primaries as a true vetting system, I don't want that time taken away from the voting membership to asses the candidates. When it comes to the presidential primaries, that is another story, because I think it is a mess in it's present form.

As for the party leadership. Don't confuse acceptance of the only real choice most of us have with "satisfaction". Most people I know, including those who vote regularly, feel little more than they are choosing the lesser of two evils most of the time. Now that one party has gone off into the realm of real evil that sentiment has temporarily lifted in most, and I cannot say for certain how large the disaffection with the party has come to the point of "DU Disgust", but it is out there. Especially when we lose.

Further, the idea of "leadership" in terms of setting forth an agenda or a direction, is one thing (and if it strays too far from it's membership will create divisions and internal strife). Rigging the primary process in order to prevent the membership of a party from having their choice, which is their right regardless of what you think of it, is quite another. That is not leadership, it is a sign of weakness when the party is afraid of it's own membership and feels the need to interfere behind their backs, rather than lead with a clear agenda. And if members are revolting against an agenda that they do not approve of through their primaries, then you have exactly the kind of internal problems that I referred to.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Primaries have new importance currently

The political era has shifted again, that must be taken into account when comparing this period to prior periods, including those as recent as 25 years ago. Major advances in marketing, aided by vast improvements in the technology of data gathering and analysis, have changed political campaigns, making an honest personal connection of the candidate to those s/he seeks to govern less important. Media consolidation changed coverage of campaigns, so voters are given less information on how their choice will effect real issues. The decline of organized labor changed who gets granted seats in the back rooms where deals still are cut.

How the "political product" will be packaged is now more important than what the "political product" actually is. George W Bush was a "compassionate conservative for the 2000 campaign, in 2004 he was "macho man" with a John Wayne strut. Same product, different package. There was a greater need in decades past for party leaders to pick candidates who could rally the base, inspire voters, offer programs that were relevant to the times etc. Now the need is to find candidates who won't scare off the big money needed to run the modern political machines that script images and mold candidates to fit profiles compatible with the intended marketing.

I am exaggerating for effect, but not that much. Today's party leaders, to quote the Kink's, may still try to "give the people what they want" but they increasingly do it more through marketing than real substance. They have less of a need to find candidates who demonstrate an ability to excite voters through manifest leadership qualities, they need candidates who can attract big money who they also think are malleable enough to project whatever image it's been determined through polls, study groups, political consultants, or recent election trends is needed to win. Problem is, by substituting image for substance they frequently get it all wrong, a copy is never the same as an original, and it never can be original. It's like Hollywood sequels and network situation comedy knock off shows. It's mimicry, which wears thin, and to make matters worse, ever since Republicans won control of Congress Democratic Party leaders have all too often been trying to mimic Republicans.

It is possible in the future that a generation of grass roots activists can and will rise up through Democratic Party ranks to gain control of more of the Party machinery than we now have our hands on. That may result in a different orientation toward how and why certain Democratic candidates are chosen. But for the short run, the Primary is a more important tool now than it has been in a generation. Even the "true believers" Republican Right understands that. Often just the threat of a primary opponent for a sitting moderate Republican is enough to pull that politician back into Party line. In our case, in the Democratic Party, the use of or threat of use of Primaries (and that threat is hollow if never backed through action) provides us with a rare chance to leverage our sweat equity involvement in the Democratic Party into an important electoral factor before it becomes completely inconsequential in the face of big money, both during the general election and after, if we are so fortunate, that person takes office and starts planning their next run. Who will they think they need to please to stay in office?

With the lower voter turn out typical in Primaries, grass roots activists can change the course of an election through boots on the ground, fingers on keyboards, and small donations. I disagree with your premise, Magistrate, because I think we are rapidly losing the attention of Party leaders. They aren't looking to us to see who we want, they are looking to consultants instead because they are convinced they can influence our thinking after they select the candidate THEY think should represent us. Some of them are sincere, some of them are corrupt, but too many of them think they know better than the voters who we ultimately will choose to support with their guidance.

Primaries are the best, and maybe only way to change that dynamic in the short term. Election defeats, the traditional way to get a Party to change course, have become counter productive because of an ingrained delusion, like Michael Jackson thinking one more nose job is all it will take to finally win broad acceptance. In reality Democrats had acceptance when they were authentic, and are losing it as authenticity is shed, but they keep looking in the mirror, wanting to look just a little more like a moderate Republican, the only political breed doing worse than todays Democrats.

[ultraist]

24. Bravo

Excellent explanation.

And what about OPEN primaries? How reasonable is it that people from outside the party are influencing who OUR candidates will be? Are they voting with good intentions? Doubtful.

A primary is NOT a pure, flawless, democratic system that always puts forth the best candidate for the party.

[radio4progressives]

22. see this link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2463240

[Le Taz Hot]

30. Oustanding rebuttal!

Well thought out. :applause:

[punpirate]

6. Umm, we've had a primary system since...

... very early in the 20th century, so we have had primaries for almost as long as we have not, and the reasons for them were precisely the ones described, that there was general sentiment in the public that party elites controlled the candidates and the elections. This feeling was strong in both cities (in part due to the influence of cronyism in the Boss Tweed years) and in the countryside (resulting in the rise of the Populist movement, along with groups such as that brief oddity, the Know-Nothings). The demand of the public for more say in candidate selection even extended to the 17th Amendment, requiring the popular election of Senators. That demand was a result of the corruption and cronyism embedded in the system at the time.

Even so, the primary system is still a party animal, so to speak. Closed primaries exist in something like thirty-eight states, and the state party exerts its influence--particularly with regard to funding and endorsements provided by the state political offices--on those primaries.

[The Magistrate]

8. They Did Not Come To Predominate, Sir

Until the last forty years or so. Before that, primaries not by no means universal, and were held under very tight control of party leadership, and mostly merely ratified slating decisions already arrived at, serving as a sort of dress rehearsal for the general campaign, and means of assesing how many votes a machine could reliably field.

[punpirate]

9. Hmm, it seems the people complaining about the primary system...

... today are complaining about those very same attributes you describe. They're just suggesting that those attributes are not any more desirable now than they were in the past, with or without primaries. :)

Cheers.

[The Magistrate]

10. It Is Not Evident To Me, Sir, They Are Not Desireable

To some degree, they are certainly inevitable....

[rfkrfk]

12. the current two-state primary system, has fixable problems

oops, should have been, caucus + primary

already, politicians are whoring themselves,
visiting New Hampshire and Iowa, to help some
candidate for dog catcher or alderman.

IMO, the only good thing about the 'kingmaker' arrangement,
is that 'a political nobody' will never be the nominee.

[CTLawGuy]

14. ok

"Political parties got on without them very well for a long time."

Human society got along without electricity for a long time, doesn't make electricity a bad idea. Also, the polio vaccine, and the Internet, and cell phones...


If you were the head of a company, would you have a hiring system whereby people not accountable to you would produce only two candidates for you? One is invariably a terrible candidate, and the other may not impress you either. But you, as the head of a company must hire a worker between these two preselected candidates.

Or would you prefer to have a system where you have a bunch of good candidate that come to you at will, and you are able to select your preference?


In which scenario is the hirer going to get a more effective worker?

[CTLawGuy]

23. if winning the election was the only thing we cared about

then why don't we just merge with the Republicans into a one-party state? We will win 100% of the time. And how could we be unhappy since we don't care about what the candidate's views are or whether they represent us? All we want to do is win, right?


My father used to say, that when he had a micromanaging boss, and there was a task that needed to be done,

he would pick the solution (call it solution X) he wanted to pursue, and he would go to the boss,

he would tell the boss that there were two courses of action, solution X and solution Y (which is invariably ridiculous and unacceptable). The boss would choose X and would be happy, feeling as if he were really making decisions. Through this way, my father got to do what he wanted and the boss would feel like he was running the show.


That story reminds me of our two party system. My father is like the party leaders and the boss is the people.

The party leaders work for us,but they came up with this system where we get two choices and one is always terrible, so invariably the choice the party leaders want is what we select.

and we feel like we are making a difference.

A two party system is democracy like the micromanaging boss in my story is really running the show.

Its an illusion of control. Real control happens when the people have many meaningful choices, and that is the primary.

[Inland]

27. As it seems that Hackett was going to lose primary, maybe irrelevant

The push of the elites may have been complimenting the obvious will of the primary voters as argued in a post by Skinner.

Therefore, this seems to be less a case of the party bosses picking the candidate then working to avoid a waste of money and possibly damaging contest, which is the type of action that both confirms the purpose of the primary election (in that most dem voters would have wanted the result) and the back room selection (quick, cheap, no messy intraparty fights in public).

[Aaaargh]

29. The primary system came about as a needed reform

"The primary is a recent innovation, and any analysis of its results must declare them mixed at best. Political parties got on without them very well for a long time."

No, they are NOT a recent innovation, and parties did NOT "get along very well without them." Only PRESIDENTIAL primaries are a fairly recent innovation. There have been widespread primary election systems for local and congressional races in this country since early in the 20th century. The rise of primaries came about as a needed reform and a refinement of democracy.

The purpose of primary elections, when they were first introduced, was to stem the corruption within 'boss' systems in big cities:

"The popularity of primaries at the presidential level postdates their continuous use in state and local elections, including contests for the U.S. Congress. By the 1890's, a series of states had enacted mandatory primary election procedures, but, like several registration laws which preceded them, these usually applied only to urban areas, where progressive reformers -- and rural legislators -- felt that opportunities for corruption were the greatest. The 1898 Ohio statute, for example, regulated behavior only in those counties that happened to include the cities of Cleveland and Cincinnati. Similarly, a Massachusetts statute set standards only to be applied in Boston. By 1917, almost every state required activity for major party offices and for at least some statewide offices."

- from 'Congressional Primaries and the Politics of Representation,' 2001,Galderisi, Ezra and Lyons.

If primaries, going back to their origins, had had the dismal effects on the political process which you suggest, they would have brought opposition early on and probably would have been abandoned by the legislators who founded them. Instead, primaries worked -- they were and are very widely accepted as a vital aspect of our electoral democracy.

This contention is also fundamentally untrue:

"The idea that "party bosses" select unpopular candidates that people do not like is more than nine-tenths myth. A Party leader has every incentive to support a candidate who is likely to win an election, and generally has some practical experience of what is involved in doing so. This will tend towards their selecting candidates who are indeed widely popular with the Party rank and file, and appealing to the general electorate."

Party leaders are not seers, and hopefully, few would claim the grand level of prognosticating wisdom which you impute to them. The truth is, even before we had our system of presidential primaries in which delegates are accrued and a nomination won through primary victories, primaries were used as a TOOL by political parties to see how a presidential candidate fared with certain parts of the electorate. A classic example of this is JFK's victory in the WV primary in 1960, which convinced skeptical party leaders that he could do well with hardcore Protestant voters. Experienced politicians and political observers know that polling data is unreliable and no substitute for electoral results.

Of course, there can be drawbacks to the direct-primary system under some circumstances, but the primary system has served to root out the worst of the corruption of insular political institutions, patronage and cronyism. The argument made here against primaries, taken to its logical conclusion, is an argument against democracy altogether: let the 'wise men' of the community pick office-holders, the ignorant mob can't be trusted to do so.

[applegrove]

3. Well you are missing out on the Nov 2006 race. That is where your

democracy has trouble. Fix that one first. Then go to electoral reform at a local level.

First you have to have actual Dems in power in Congress.

[CTLawGuy]

15. kick

NT

[NativeTexan]

16. You BETCHA!!

Democrats fight HARD in primaries, but come together afterward because, not only have we aired our differences, but we always KNOW that there is more that unites us than divides us!!

[ultraist]

25. "Democrats fight hard in primaries"

Oh, really? The large majority of Democrats don't even show up to vote for primaries. The turn out for primaries is extremely low.

[CTLawGuy]

26. so what

if people are content with choosing from among whom other people choose, that is their preference. Why does that justify taking the power of influence from people who do care about who we nominate?

[rucky]

17. You said it better than I've been trying to say it.

K&R

[bvar22]

19. I'll give you the 5th K&R.

All Politics is LOCAL......wha??...really????

My bad.

All Politics SHOULD be LOCAL!!!!!
:patriot:

[VonDoomPhd]

20. Previous post on this topic

I posted this yesterday and will add it here...


Open primaries are essential in our political process. It is not enough that we give people the illusion of choice, they must be given in fact a REAL choice.
Behind-closed-doors machinations and maneuverings are always going to be with us. However, we can limit the extent to which these clandestine steps are implemented by making our voices heard and telling those behind the scenes that such behaviour is unacceptable and undemocratic.

I understand why some can appreciate these tactics from a political standpoint as a primary campaign (especially if it turns gnarly) can drain a candidate financially and emotionally. But while these tactics may have merit they have no moment in American democracy. So, boo-fucking-hoo if the annointed republican-lite saviour of the Democratic party in (insert state and district) is savaged by his challengers and considerably weakened come the general election. Politics isn't a pollyana at Grandma's house. You should EXPECT to get roughed up. True leaders can take the heat and still come out swinging against the oppposition come November.

The fact of the matter is that progressive candidates (and I am NOT using Hackett as an example or anyone else) are traditionally those that are approached to get the hell out of the primary, i.e., "clear the field."
Why?
Because traditionally progressive/grassrooots candidates don't have the money and/or exposure that the establishment has. So when they gear up for a primary they talk about issues, give scary striaght answers to simple questions and point out how their challengers differ from them (this whole "pointing out how challengers differ" is sometimes called "attacking" and is indicative of running a dirty campaign. Again: boo-fucking-hoo.)
The progressive/grassroots candidate can say these things because he is like Marvel Comics' Daredevil: a man with nothing to lose is a Man Without Fear.

[Le Taz Hot]

28. Ah, yes, somebody GETS it!

and actually most of us get it. It's just too bad we have to continually repeat this counter against the "well, that's politics" mantra. In a way, the status quo proponents are correct, it IS politics, as it stands now. But it shouldn't be and it's up to WE THE PEOPLE to change that.

There's nothing we can do about Hackett now that he's decided to drop out of the race (I think wrongly so), but we can focus our attention in other areas where this is happening, and its happening a lot.