On this occasion I would like to focus on the happenings of the Democratic Party at this point in the election cycle. Here, we have a conflict of interests. Yes of course, the Obama v. Clinton conflict is strong and well, though bad for the party and yet good as well, but I speak of another conflict, between old guard and next generation democracy. You may think automatically that I'm still talking about the candidates, and indirectly I am, but I'm really talking about the process by which we nominate candidates for the general election.
Our nomination process runs off the old model of democracy "with limits". Candidates must get some number of delegates (2024) and they win the nomination. What we must understand is that in the present format, party elections are not democratic at all. In fact, the only democratic part about the nomination process, the public vote, doesn't even have to be followed. In addition, so-called "super delegates" (in name alone implying a greater quality than regular delegates) don't have to vote for the person that the popular vote goes to in any quantity, majority/minority percentage or winner takes all. And, why do delegates exist at all? Why not have the popular vote count? Isn't that what promises an election in November, the most votes? Some will say that it alienates the smaller states, and while it doesn't do that (as they still vote), it does punch down the overly inflated airbag they call their vote, back into the democratic, one person one equal vote, mold.
This system is old guard, like the Electoral College, like Senators being voted in by committee (akin to the super delegates) and not by the people at all. These "protections" were put in place subvert democracy. The idea that the party's success is more important than the public's will is anti-democratic, regardless of whatever way it impacts the general election. The idea that the public can subvert popular democracy is not only false, but impossible. The public will IS the result of whatever popular democracy births. But, we live in a nation of protected democracy, where the old values of protectionist politics still remains, where the establishment chooses it's successor in a process akin to the elections the Russian Federation and not the democratic country that we claim to be. In this "great democracy" the people's votes are circumvented at every turn to make the process "easier" and "safer" when in fact, while such notions are debatable, the realization that regardless of that the process is still undemocratic remains paramount in the fight of the old guard, the conservatives by definition, to maintain a hold on the party and on power.
Those in power choose who is to replace them. They are built in their image. And Hillary Clinton is clearly the choice of the super delegates so far, of the old guard and the old way of democracy. Change comes in leaps and bounds my friends, and we cannot be afraid to take that leap of faith when the time is right. We have a chance to push a candidate through the system this election cycle, one who, if the system had any control over, it would have defeated them long ago.
This said, I give you my choice for President of the United States: Vote Barack Obama, 2008. Change should never be ridiculed for without it we would all be Republicans.
Our nomination process runs off the old model of democracy "with limits". Candidates must get some number of delegates (2024) and they win the nomination. What we must understand is that in the present format, party elections are not democratic at all. In fact, the only democratic part about the nomination process, the public vote, doesn't even have to be followed. In addition, so-called "super delegates" (in name alone implying a greater quality than regular delegates) don't have to vote for the person that the popular vote goes to in any quantity, majority/minority percentage or winner takes all. And, why do delegates exist at all? Why not have the popular vote count? Isn't that what promises an election in November, the most votes? Some will say that it alienates the smaller states, and while it doesn't do that (as they still vote), it does punch down the overly inflated airbag they call their vote, back into the democratic, one person one equal vote, mold.
This system is old guard, like the Electoral College, like Senators being voted in by committee (akin to the super delegates) and not by the people at all. These "protections" were put in place subvert democracy. The idea that the party's success is more important than the public's will is anti-democratic, regardless of whatever way it impacts the general election. The idea that the public can subvert popular democracy is not only false, but impossible. The public will IS the result of whatever popular democracy births. But, we live in a nation of protected democracy, where the old values of protectionist politics still remains, where the establishment chooses it's successor in a process akin to the elections the Russian Federation and not the democratic country that we claim to be. In this "great democracy" the people's votes are circumvented at every turn to make the process "easier" and "safer" when in fact, while such notions are debatable, the realization that regardless of that the process is still undemocratic remains paramount in the fight of the old guard, the conservatives by definition, to maintain a hold on the party and on power.
Those in power choose who is to replace them. They are built in their image. And Hillary Clinton is clearly the choice of the super delegates so far, of the old guard and the old way of democracy. Change comes in leaps and bounds my friends, and we cannot be afraid to take that leap of faith when the time is right. We have a chance to push a candidate through the system this election cycle, one who, if the system had any control over, it would have defeated them long ago.
This said, I give you my choice for President of the United States: Vote Barack Obama, 2008. Change should never be ridiculed for without it we would all be Republicans.
Comments