The complaint that the process is not "one person one vote" does not make sense to me. Neither a caucus nor a primary is supposed to be "one person one vote". Why are people so deluded as to complain about the lack of "democracy" in the process. I mean what country do you live in?
So please follow me in this. Primaries and/or caucuses or other methods of delegate selection are meant to select people to run as representatives of a Political Party. I know it is crazy, but the Democratic Party still claims to be a political organization.
So let us step back and just suppose that the Democratic Party is actually a political party and not only part of the national plebiscite process that we call "presidential elections."
If we were to think of the Democratic Party as a political party then a caucus process would probably be more representative of the activist in the party than a primary process which relies on vast amounts of "outside" money and Madison Avenue techniques. If the Democratic Party "wants" candidates more representative of Party activists, or of people highly committed to the party then the caucus process will always be more "democratic" and representative of the "party" than a "primary" process.
Either way, "one person, one vote" is not supposed to be the point. Maybe "one democratic party member, one vote" is supposed to be the point, but then why have a party convention at all? And why run the primary process so loosely that it is very hard to tell the difference between a free rider in the Democratic Party, a poacher, and an actual committed "Democratic Party" member? Even to ask the question is to show the flaw in B's reasoning. She assumes that somehow selecting a nominee for a party is like holding a national plebiscite, and the demonstration election of a national plebiscite is somehow inherently more small "d" democratic than a national caucus system.
Now let me make clear once again. I believe that the Democratic Party is one of our ruling class parties so I don't feel as if I have a horse in this race. (Though I must admit that I am charmed by the fact that for the first time in a long time there is a real live horse race. I love the horses and to see Hilary and Barack neck and neck rounding the post is kind of new.) But when the selection for party candidates relied less on the primary system, the candidates for the Democratic Party were more liberal, and in the Upper Midwest and parts of the East tended to be a bit "social democratic."
I think that any objective view of the primary system will show it to be less representative of the party "faithful" than a caucus system, and more exclusive of candidates than most Democratic Party activist thought it would be in 1972. For party nominations back rooms and caucuses are actually more representative even if they don't seem as "democratic."
By the way, I don't think that anyone on this list has dealt with the fact that the reason Obama does better at caucuses is because his ground level organization is better. Clinton ran a campaign as a political insider and did not rely much on ground level organizing until the approach to "Super Tuesday" caught her campaign playing catch-up.
I don't think anybody on this list who complains about Obama is going to answer me here.Some seem to be crypto-Clinton supporters. Some seem to be so caught up in the bourgeois political process as to accept the delusion that the primary system is supposed to be democratic, or that party selection is supposed to represent "the will of the people." Any party selection system that claims to represent "the democratic will of the people" as a whole instead of party faithful and regulars is bullshit to start with. And shame on any leftist who believes that this bullshit _should_ be true.
On 3/6/08, B. <docile_body at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah, what Doug says is true.
>
> Hillary won the popular vote in TX, but it looks less
> and less meaningful. Texas has what is euphemistically
> called "the Texas two step," where you vote once in
> the primary on March 4, and then later again that
> night, starting at 7:30 PM, at your precinct
> headquarters, you can vote AGAIN. This second vote
> tends to attract more fanaticized folks, political
> junkies, and guess who the more fanaticized voters
> tend to be? Hint: People who don't vote HRC. Precinct
> HQs are also harder to find that regular polling
> stations. The TX Hillary and TX Obama sites tell you
> where they are depending on your ZIP code.
>
> In other words, for the Democratic Party, it is not
> "one person, one vote." It is "one person, one vote,
> and then, later that night, if you feel like it or can
> make it, another, possibly more important, vote." It
> is a huge pain in the ass and is a very
> anti-democratic filter or check on the peoples' will.
> Hillary won the popular vote in TX. But because of the
> fucked up "Texas two step," Obamaniacs could
> compensate for that by using their insane zeal to have
> them go out yet again to vote at precinct HQs, which
> are combative, zealot-filled places.
>
> The DNC should just say it wants people to continue
> voting over and over again until they vote for the
> candidate that the DNC likes.
>
> A lot of working class people do not have the time or
> inclination to go vote one place one time, and then
> another place at a second, later time, to *really*
> make an impassioned vote. My feeling is, Christ, isn't
> one time in the voting booth enough?
>
>
> -B.
>
>
>
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> "Heavily Democratic areas, like Austin, get more
> delegates than others. And since places like Austin
> are hotbeds of Obama-ism, he gets extra delegates. I
> learned this from Michael Barone on, of course, Fox
> News."
>
>
> shag wrote:
>
> "I vaguely recall hearing (not reading! :) that this
> was b/c of the way TX doles out delegates, with cities
> where Teflobama is strong having more delegates than
> suburban/rural/exurban areas. Does anyone know of an
> article on this?"
>
>
> > Doug
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/