Vote fraud in Maine?

[elbe]

Well, what will you do about it? Some people in here have the guts to call that Democracy.

Even though it's an internal party issue, it's still, more or less, a representative system.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

At the very least their system for choosing convention delegates is weird:

Compared to what? In Missouri, the GOP held a non-binding open primary election, but will pick its delegates in a caucus in March.

Well, what will you do about it? Some people in here have the guts to call that Democracy. [sic]

Indeed, what to do about it other than let the various state Republican Parties decide what rules to make and how to implement them?

Would it be more democratic for the federal government to make rules standardizing state party primaries?

 

[Firestone]

Compared to what?

Compared to the primary system in New Hampshire, for example.

In Missouri, the GOP held a non-binding open primary election, but will pick its delegates in a caucus in March.

Well yes, if find this weird too.

Indeed, what to do about it other than let the various state Republican Parties decide what rules to make and how to implement them?

Would it be more democratic for the federal government to make rules standardizing state party primaries?

Frankly, viewed from here, it would seem more logical to have all states apply the same system.

But I perfectly understand that in the US these things are decided at state/party level.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Compared to the primary system in New Hampshire, for example.

So should we require other states to adopt the primary system adopted by the GOP in NH? Should we just grant that authority to NH, or should it be a federal authority? (I realize that's not what you're arguing. Just pointing out that these are the alternatives to leaving state parties free do whatever they want.)

In Missouri, the GOP held a non-binding open primary election, but will pick its delegates in a caucus in March.

Well yes, if find this weird too.Frankly, viewed from here, it would seem more logical to have all states apply the same system.

Does "logical" equal "democratic"?

At any rate, I think at least some of these strange-looking systems are systems in transition (to/from a closed primary or caucus, to/from an semi-closed, semi-open or open primary and/or caucus).

Straw polls are, by definition, non-binding and have never had any official meaning. [ETA: Remember, Bachmann won the Ames Straw Poll! She did so poorly in the Iowa caucuses that she dropped out of the race at that point.]

I think they're less illogical than they might seem to those of us outside that state party.

Oliver's criticism seems to be that letting state parties decide to make and implement their own rules--when such rules and implementations seem strange to us on the outside-- is not democratic.

 

[Firestone]

So should we require other states to adopt the primary system adopted by the GOP in NH? Should we just grant that authority to NH, or should it be a federal authority? (I realize that's not what you're arguing. Just pointing out that these are the alternatives to leaving state parties free do whatever they want.)

The way a party chooses its candidate for office is for that party to decide, not for the federal authority (imo of course).
But since the presidency is a national office, it would make sense for the national party to decide how the candidate should be choosen. I understand that the national GOP has some sway over what the state parties can or cannot do (and can "punish" them by halving the number of delegates if the state parties disobey).
So if I was American, and an influential member of the GOP, I would lobby my party to have more primaries like in New Hampshire, and less caucuses or winner take all primaries.

Does "logical" equal "democratic"?

Not necessarily.

At any rate, I think at least some of these strange-looking systems are systems in transition (to/from a closed primary or caucus, to/from an semi-closed, semi-open or open primary and/or caucus).

Straw polls are, by definition, non-binding and have never had any official meaning.

I think they're less illogical than they might seem to those of us outside that state party.

Oliver's criticism seems to be that letting state parties decide to make and implement their own rules--when such rules and implementations seem strange to us on the outside-- is not democratic.

I would only call it not democratic if not all potential voters have the same rights, or if the choosen system is open to gross manipulation by some of the stakeholders.
So on this I probably disagree with Oliver.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would only call it not democratic if not all potential voters have the same rights, or if the choosen system is open to gross manipulation by some of the stakeholders.

I don't think it's "democratic" to require any association or organization to abide by rules that give non-members any rights in their selection process. They're certainly free to open it up if they choose to, but it's their party and their choice.

And I see no reason whatsoever to restrict any organization's right to use or implement any rules whatsoever in conducting a straw poll. I think it would be undemocratic to prohibit them holding these non-binding polls, and it would be undemocratic to force them to abide by any particular set of rules.

 

[Firestone]

I don't think it's "democratic" to require any association or organization to abide by rules that give non-members any rights in their selection process. They're certainly free to open it up if they choose to, but it's their party and their choice.

I agree.
By "potential voters" I meant the electorate choosen by the party (closed, open, ...).
As I wrote, the way a party chooses its candidate for office is for that party to decide.
The government (federal or state) should not have a say in this.
I would find it not democratic if (to give an absurd example) only male party members were allowed to vote in the primary.
(Not sure whether that would be legal in the US.)

And I see no reason whatsoever to restrict any organization's right to use or implement any rules whatsoever in conducting a straw poll. I think it would be undemocratic to prohibit them holding these non-binding polls, and it would be undemocratic to force them to abide by any particular set of rules.

Again I agree.
It's not because I find something weird that I advocate restricting it (assuming I was American and had a say in this matter).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The way a party chooses its candidate for office is for that party to decide, not for the federal authority (imo of course).
But since the presidency is a national office, it would make sense for the national party to decide how the candidate should be choosen.

I suppose the national GOP could pass a rule that all the state GOP parties (which I presume are members or affiliates of the national party) to abide by one set of rules.

[ETA: We agree that it is their choice, and since they haven't chosen to do so, I tend to take these criticisms as a call for some external rule or law forcing them to do so.]

Since the general election isn't a national election, there's no logical reason to standardize the way the state parties select a candidate. That is, there is no nationwide plebescite to choose the president in the general election. It's still done by the College of Electors (state elections--which have different rules-- determine how those electors are selected). I see no reason why the national party shouldn't similarly leave it up to the state parties.

ETA: On reflection, I do agree that there is some logical reason the GOP should consider moving more and more to open primaries. The result of not doing so can be a rift between the tenor and nature of the primary and the general campaigns. That is, if the primary is strictly about catering to the "base" or the core party members, and the general election is more about winning over independents, it might be to their advantage to include more independent voters in their primary.

OTOH, the argument against this is that you (as a party) could make your primary exactly reflect the general to win the election, but wouldn't it be pretty meaningless to consider yourself a political party anymore? That is, if you don't cater to your "core", why bother winning? (The Democratic Party ran up against this issue in courting Blue Dogs just to get a nominal supermajority.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And reflecting further on my last comment in my last ETA, one could argue that the whole idea of political parties is at heart undemocratic! It's an attempt to establish alliances and leagues and act as a bloc rather than as individual people--demos. (This is perhaps more true in the Legislative than in the Executive Branch.)

 

[Firestone]

I suppose the national GOP could pass a rule that all the state GOP parties (which I presume are members or affiliates of the national party) to abide by one set of rules.

[ETA: We agree that it is their choice, and since they haven't chosen to do so, I tend to take these criticisms as a call for some external rule or law forcing them to do so.]

That's not what I mean. I don't see it as call to anything, it's just the feeling of an external observer.

Since the general election isn't a national election, there's no logical reason to standardize the way the state parties select a candidate. That is, there is no nationwide plebescite to choose the president in the general election. It's still done by the College of Electors (state elections--which have different rules-- determine how those electors are selected). I see no reason why the national party shouldn't similarly leave it up to the state parties.

Well, I find the whole electoral college system with winner take all (in all but two states) weird too.

But as it is (I think) written in the constitution, it probably will remain as it is for many more elections.
The primaries are for the parties to organize, so there I had expected a more modern approach (à la New Hampshire).
But as you said the parties don't do it, so that's the way it is.

ETA: On reflection, I do agree that there is some logical reason the GOP should consider moving more and more to open primaries. The result of not doing so can be a rift between the tenor and nature of the primary and the general campaigns. That is, if the primary is strictly about catering to the "base" or the core party members, and the general election is more about winning over independents, it might be to their advantage to include more independent voters in their primary.

OTOH, the argument against this is that you (as a party) could make your primary exactly reflect the general to win the election, but wouldn't it be pretty meaningless to consider yourself a political party anymore? That is, if you don't cater to your "core", why bother winning? (The Democratic Party ran up against this issue in courting Blue Dogs just to get a nominal supermajority.)

The middle course seems the most "logical" to me, semi-open or semi-closed. That way you let your potential voters in the general election choose the candidate, not the core, nor the adversaries (who might vote tactically for extreme candidates).

 

[Firestone]

And reflecting further on my last comment in my last ETA, one could argue that the whole idea of political parties is at heart undemocratic! It's an attempt to establish alliances and leagues and act as a bloc rather than as individual people--demos. (This is perhaps more true in the Legislative than in the Executive Branch.)

OTOH, with parties the voters have a clearer view of what they are voting for.
This may be more the case in Europe, where party discipline of MP's seems to be greater than in the US.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

OTOH, with parties the voters have a clearer view of what they are voting for.

Not always. See again the example of the Blue Dog Democrats.

But this sort of thing is true in most modern representative democracies. It's all about coalitions and parties and building a majority.

So I guess one has to give a clear definition of what it means for a rule or election system to be "democratic" before the criticism that one is undemocratic has any meaning anyway.

That's sort of why I think the notion that state parties should be free to do what they choose in establishing their way of awarding delegates is the most "democratic"--whatever system they come up with--simply because it is their choice.

No matter how "democratic" a system imposed from without might be on paper, the mere fact that it's imposed from without, IMO, makes it undemocratic.

It's sort of like the idea that the U.S. can impose democracy on nations in the Middle East by might of arms!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, I find the whole electoral college system with winner take all (in all but two states) weird too.

But as it is (I think) written in the constitution, it probably will remain as it is for many more elections.

The winner take all aspect of the general presidential election isn't in the Constitution. It's up to each state to decide how it wants to award its electors.

But the whole college of electors thing is strange. There was a decent justification for it in the days when the 12th Amendment was ratified (1803), but there is a wholly different justification for it now (other than the fact that we're stuck with it*). That is the effect of exaggerating what is a very slight difference in the popular vote so that a winner seems to be more clear in most cases (2000 notwithstanding).

Reagan can talk about having a landslide victory and a "mandate" to implement major policy changes even though his margin of victory over Carter was less than 10% of the voters who voted (a subset of the registered voters, itself a subset of people qualified to vote, itself a subset of the people). But in the electoral college, he won by a remarkable 489 to 89!

This might not seem important, but I think our legislative branch is set up to be sort of conservative (not politically, but in the sense of making it difficult to implement significant change by simple majority).

*And we're not really stuck with it. We are not slaves to the Constitution. We can amend it, and we have done so 27 times.

 

[Firestone]

Not always. See again the example of the Blue Dog Democrats.

But this sort of thing is true in most modern representative democracies. It's all about coalitions and parties and building a majority.

So I guess one has to give a clear definition of what it means for a rule or election system to be "democratic" before the criticism that one is undemocratic has any meaning anyway.

That's sort of why I think the notion that state parties should be free to do what they choose in establishing their way of awarding delegates is the most "democratic"--whatever system they come up with--simply because it is their choice.

No matter how "democratic" a system imposed from without might be on paper, the mere fact that it's imposed from without, IMO, makes it undemocratic.

It's sort of like the idea that the U.S. can impose democracy on nations in the Middle East by might of arms!

I don't know in detail how each of the parties manages its primary in each state and territory, but I am not aware of any case I would call "undemocratic".

We also agree that it is up to each party to decide how to manage the process.

But remember, the notions I played with were "logical" and "weird".

It is of course none of my business how a party I'm not a member of chooses candidates for a the president of a country I'm not a citizen of.
However, I would expect the parties (especially the two major ones) to have a system in place that results in the choice of a candidate who:
1. is a good representative of the values and goals of the party;
2. has a reasonable chance of winning the election.

In recent history, the parties mostly managed to select such candidates. Barry Goldwater and George McGovern are exceptions I'm aware of (they may be more of course).
So primaries and caucuses seem to work and produce acceptable candidates most of the time.

One can question if messy processes like what we saw in Maine don't damage a party.
More generally, I wonder if caucuses are such a good idea. For example, one sometimes reads that Ron Paul has an edge in caucuses, because he is good in organizing his fervent supporters. That's fine, and if these are the rules of the game, nobody can blame him for using this to his advantage.
But this skill in caucuses will be irrelevant in the general election. Wouldn't it be better for the selection process to more closely mimics the general election?

Just wait, once we immigrate to the US and become citizens, I will join my state's Democratic Party, and impose my views on their (well, my!) primary process.

(Fascinating stuff really, viewed from Europe. So different from the way it works here. Not better or worse, just different.)

 

[Firestone]

The winner take all aspect of the general presidential election isn't in the Constitution. It's up to each state to decide how it wants to award its electors.

But the whole college of electors thing is strange. There was a decent justification for it in the days when the 12th Amendment was ratified (1803), but there is a wholly different justification for it now (other than the fact that we're stuck with it*). That is the effect of exaggerating what is a very slight difference in the popular vote so that a winner seems to be more clear in most cases (2000 notwithstanding).

Reagan can talk about having a landslide victory and a "mandate" to implement major policy changes even though his margin of victory over Carter was less than 10% of the voters who voted (a subset of the registered voters, itself a subset of people qualified to vote, itself a subset of the people). But in the electoral college, he won by a remarkable 489 to 89!

This might not seem important, but I think our legislative branch is set up to be sort of conservative (not politically, but in the sense of making it difficult to implement significant change by simple majority).

*And we're not really stuck with it. We are not slaves to the Constitution. We can amend it, and we have done so 27 times.

I understand and like the way that your legislative branch (at least the Senate) is set up to be sort of conservative.

The constitution can be amended, sure.
But how likely is it that 3/4 of the states will accept a serious reform of the electoral college? What incentive does a small state have to accept such a change?
I once expected the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" to succeed, but that doesn't seem very likely for now.
The current system in practice disenfranchises many voters in non swing states. That's ... weird.

 

[Oliver]

And there is even more evidence of fraud ...

 

[WildCat]

Well, what will you do about it? Some people in here have the guts to call that Democracy.

This isn't democracy, it's a party primary.

 

[Brainster]

And there is even more evidence of fraud ...

We seem to have different definitions for the words "evidence" and "fraud".

 

[mortimer]

And there is even more evidence of fraud ...

Please feel free to document the fraud here, Oliver.