I'm going to say it again...perhaps until I am blue in the face.

[Pacifist Patriot]

We, the people, do not vote for the Democratic presidential candidate during the nominating process.

The nominating process is not democratic and never has been.

The rules for nominating the Democratic presidential candidate are a messy glop of convoluted confused mayem.

The nominating process is not mandated nor described by the U.S. Constitution.

We, the people, are pandered to and paid lip service to, but ultimately we have little to no direct say in whom the party chooses as our presidential candidate.

We are seeing ugly power-grabbing and power-preserving politics unlike any in recent memory, but that doesn't mean our votes are counting any more or any less than they have in the past.

Throw out the perception that the nominating process is the same thing as an election. The two are not remotely the same.

Anything can, and has, happened at a party convention.

I am neither defending nor condemning the process, just hopefully highlighting a gross misconception. Black mark for the beaks who taught us Civics.

Oh, and we don't vote for the president in the general election either.

[TheDoorbellRang]

1. Good luck. There's a steep learning curve, tho

Problem is, if several here don't know this, think of how much Joe and Jane Q. Public don't grasp.

[Pacifist Patriot]

4. No kidding. My forehead is starting to ache from the wall banging.

I am just astounded by how many here think all of this political maneuvering is something novel, unethical, etc.

It would be a lot easier and more honest if the state parties just sent delegates to the convention, hashed it out over a long weekend, vetted the crap out of the candidates and came back and told us who the nominee was. Hell of a lot cheaper too. People can jump all over me about advocating back room deals all they want, but that's the reality of it behind this facade of primary voting and caucasing.

I'm tired of being condescended to by being treated as if I have much say as a typical voter. It's that which has lead so many people to believe they have rights in this process. Why can't we all just admit it's party politics and not democracy?

[backscatter712]

12. It's not novel, but is unethical.

At least now, it's out in the open. If Hillary wants to game the system by poaching delegates, or by trying to get delegates from Soviet-style elections even though those states broke the rules; we're gonna know about it.

And when millions of people see how the system's being gamed, they're gonna get pissed, and they're gonna put the politicking assclowns in their place.

[TheDoorbellRang]

15. I think there'll be some major changes after this year, tho

Should be some interesting meetings in the DNC in the next year or two, as indignant folks weigh in on caucuses vs. primaries, open vs. closed primaries; pledged delegates vs. super delegates. Oughta be exciting.

[Pacifist Patriot]

17. Change could be virtually guaranteed if more of us would do this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5370659&mesg_id=5370659

[LakeSamish706]

2. I do think in the future what they should do is conduct the Primaries like...

the General Election (minus the electoral college) and just have it on the same dates in all states with the winner of the Popular vote wins... Period.

Imagine how much money that would eliminate in wasteful spending! This millions...

Edited on Thu Apr-03-08 07:13 PM by LakeSamish706
of wasted $$$$$ could certainly be used in some other more productive means. So what they need is to have the same donations go into a pot that could then be used by a "very" reputable charity that uses the funds in this country.

[KaptBunnyPants]

32. Yeah, but then you would have to raise even more money to be competitve.

I like the idea of having primaries in stages, but they could group regions together so that the voting is over in a few months.

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. Study history ... pure democracy sucks. This is party politics and

you can join or sit it out.

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. Are you adding your comments or directing the advice to me?

I don't understand your response without intent. You're essentially saying much more concisely (and directly I might add) what I said in my OP.

[Fredda Weinberg]

11. Your outrage is misdirected. Instead of condemning the system

we have, try to understand the forces that formed it so as to affect it in a positive way. My intent is offer perspective @ a time when many are responding to the moment.

[Pacifist Patriot]

13. Please note in the OP I directly said I was NOT condemning the system.

We live in a representative democracy under the auspices of political parties. I have no problem with that (well, other than wishing we had one or two more viable parties). All I want to do is dispell some of this notion floating around that we are engaging in direct democracy in the nominating process.

Edited to add: I'm disappointed the OP came across as outrage. A little irritated with so many people who don't understand the rudiments of the process, but definitely no outrage at anyone or anything. Must reevaluate my writing.

[Fredda Weinberg]

20. Thank you for the clarification. Acceptance is difficult and sometimes

unpopular here @ DU. History helps, but for those who can't appreciate it, useless.

The protracted nature of the process, the need for criticism and highlighting weaknesses is bound to bring out the worst in us. It's the crucible in which we ultimately see our candidates for who they are. This requires those with illusions to surrender or crack.

You sound like you'll be fine. When silly season is over, we'll still be here.

[grantcart]

6. Good point fore example --- Baghdad has pure democracy

80% of the people in the neighborhood don't like the other 20% then the majority wins and we start killing the other 20%.

We live in a democratic republic that guarantees minority rights - democracies don't.

[Pacifist Patriot]

7. I cannot even fathom how a direct democracy could even function.

Certainly not in a pluralistic society of any size and scope.

[grantcart]

8. well in my family I had two brothers. whenever two brothers agreed they

beat up the third brother until there was agreement - everything was settled very democratically lol

[Pacifist Patriot]

14. Sounds pretty much how democracy is practiced among my three sons.

:)

[LostinVA]

9. You got it -- good post

[goldcanyonaz]

10. K&R!

[depakid]

16. Watching this lengthy, byzantine and EXPENSIVE process

makes me appreciate parliamentary systems.

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. Three very good adjectives for our process.

And as someone who bristles under inefficiency it's driving me mad!

[PATRICK]

19. 2000, 2008

Can anyone think of two more blatant spectacles testing and exposing every inch of the election delusion?

And guess what? No matter what, the focus never rests on the system, reforming the system, questioning the awkward "legitimacy" of frauds, coups, MSM fraud and lies, and millionaires solely representing the masses. Never for one second does comprehensive or obvious reform get front stage. Instead of comprehensive some of the stooges for the flawed system themselves 'reform" and tweak the embarrassments to further their future advantages and make it even more of a mess.

The pillars of reform are simple, immensely noted and desired by the public in general. Get big money and private financing out of politics and elections. Simplify and universalize the methodologies of voting toward transparency, accountability and routine rechecking. Get fair and balanced real information to the people as a required and absolutely necessary public service. I think Biden is right about public financing being the key to toppling the entire mess. You can't tinker at all with the primary process without stumbling over the money advantages that cause MSM advantages and insider clout and on and on.

To do that, all rich and famous and deeply rooted insiders would have to surrender their power to anyone of quality rising from the ranks.

[sandnsea]

21. Aaargh, the nominating process has RULES

The RULES in each state are approved BEFORE the process begins. There are also LAWS in each state regarding the nominating process, to guarantee a basic fairness, and also giving the party the right to set the RULES.

So please stop pretending it's a free for all because it IS NOT.

[Pacifist Patriot]

24. Never once said it was a free-for-all. I also never said there weren't rules.

I'm not sure why you would insist I'd advocate rule-breaking. They only point I've been making. The only one. Is that most people seem to be completely unaware of how complex the system is and that the rules are very different from simply pulling a lever and counting our votes. That's really all I've been saying.

[sandnsea]

26. Because it isn't complex

It's simple.

1. It's a party nomination, not a federal election.
2. The Democratic Party uses a proportional system, a sort of affirmative action for minorities.
3. We have primaries and caucuses, and they both have pros and cons, like anything else.
4. We are electing delegates, who do change their vote if their candidate has dropped out, but have never changed their votes just because a different candidate wants them to.
5. Superdelegates can do what they want, and we can also legitimately tell them they better respect OUR vote or we will vote their butts out.

Now. That's it in a nutshell. Why confuse it?

Sure, people can argue all sorts of things, just like lawyers argue all sorts of things in a court of law. But it doesn't make the arguments reality.

[Pacifist Patriot]

27. What is simple to you is complicated to others.

Clearly it is complicated if so many people keep screaming rule breaking (and no, I am NOT referring to your post about Hillary) when in fact they have no idea what the rules are and the suggested action does not violate any rules. For example, consider the number of people up in arms when the Telegraph suggested the DNC might be considering putting Al Gore forward at the convention. They had no idea such a move not only doesn't break the rules but has been done before.

Consider the number of people who think the votes for the candidates are tallied and whoever has the most is the nominee. I am not talking about DU here. Ask registered Dem On the Street what a superdelegate is and I'll bet you dollars to donuts half of them have no clue. Ask what makes someone a pledged delegate and if that means they can't change their vote. My jaw darned near hit the floor at a Democratic Women's Club meeting when I discovered 75% of their members were this clueless.

It is complicated to people in primary states who have never experienced the caucus system. Complicated doesn't mean inexplicable or inaccessible. It means that someone has to put some thought and effort into learning it and understanding it.

I am not trying to confuse anyone, but I have to disagree that the process is simple. If it were we wouldn't be seeing all of this misinformation and failed expectations flying around.

As for your statement #1... that would indeed be exactly what I have been saying all along.

Edited for typo

[sandnsea]

28. The misinformation is intentional

The exact purpose of the misinformation is to confuse people. That's why I don't understand why anybody entertains the misinformation in any way at all. Call it what it is. Manipulating the rules in ways the rules were never intended to go.

[noel711]

22. Sadly, most schools don't teach civics anymore....

they must teach to the test...
(to meet the "No Child LEft Behind" convoluted
mandate..)

So all that most folks hear is what Rush Limbaugh,
or Fox news blares over the airwaves...

And don't expect them to think!

[cooolandrew]

23. The people do have the ultimate say as their decision has to be a fair one to the people who elected

them or they say bye bye to their seat.

[Pacifist Patriot]

25. I'm sorry, you've lost me. Are you talking about the legislature or the delegates to the convention?

[kwenu]

29. Not buying what you're selling. The nominating process relies on the right to vote.

Those votes, whether expressed in a primary or caucus are relevant and DO count heavily in selecting our nominee.

[Pacifist Patriot]

35. I am not selling anything.

You are absolutely welcome to your perspective on the process. Cheers

[OnionPatch]

30. And so what is the point of this education you're giving us?

Are we supposed to just shut up and accept it now that we know that's the way it is?

I have my own rules, too....If the *Democratic* Party uses the "rules" to do something I consider blatantly *undemocratic* I'll find myself another party.

[Pacifist Patriot]

34. Shut up and accept it-- What ever would give you that idea?

Ignorance will only perpetuate the problem. Perhaps if more people realize the nature of the beast they will get more involved and therefore become instruments of change. Instead of finding another party, why not help to make the Democratic party more democratic?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5370659&mesg_id=5370659

[OnionPatch]

38. I actually already do all that stuff.

nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

39. Good for you. Perhaps others will follow your lead.

[KaptBunnyPants]

31. I know, but that doesn't excuse ignoring the will of the people who participated in the primary.

You keep bringing this up as if it negates the outrage at a candidate who refuses to abide by the results of the primaries. Yes, technically they can all tell us to go suck it. But I can tell them the same thing if they do. Our country is, or was, transitioning from a Republic to a Democracy, and our primary system is a Democratic gloss put over a Republican system. But I demand that my voice, and the voice of all people who took part in sanctioned primaries/caucuses, be counted. If the Democratic Party were to heap scorn on democracy by refusing to abide by its own members' choice, then I would no longer be a Democrat.

[Pacifist Patriot]

36. Not at all! In my OP I clearly said I was neither defending nor condemning the process.

My hope is that as more become aware of how it works perhaps they will do something to help change it. I am disappointed by how many people are willing to just dump the Democratic party when they don't listen rather than help make an effort to reform it. I understand it because it seems so overwhelming, but if the disgruntled jumped ship the problem will still remain.

Outrage at the candidates who don't listen to the voters is all well and good, but if the problem is with the system itself than that outrage will merely be perpetuated again in the future and never resolved.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5370659&mesg_id=5370659

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. George Washington agrees with you.

Farewell Address - 1796

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

[Pacifist Patriot]

37. I am disappointed by how many people have contacted me assuming...

I am a party hack telling them to shut up and sit down because I am reminding them that the nominating process is not the same thing as a federal election and not as democratic.

On the one hand I think the only way to make any real change in the party is to get more involved, not less.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5370659&mesg_id=5370659

On the other I bristle at only two parties having any real opportunity to engage in our country's political discourse and cannot stand how they dominate the agenda and direct that discourse. What a horrible way to reinforce the idea that every problem is black and white, either/or, win/lose. It really damanges our ability to think more creatively.