Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Primaries, Caucuses, and the People...oh my!

Primaries are supposed to be the next leap in democracy. They take power away from big scary men smoking cigars in back rooms (they probably have evil looking mustaches too) deciding candidates for office without a care for what the dear old people want. That's the image that reformers like to paint up, at least. Lets look at whither primaries are the liberating force that their supposed to be, or are they the new scary cigar chomping back room men.

The primary election is one that usually has the lowest turnout. While those in the political class (or really close to it) look to the primary to see what is in stored for the election cycle and what it means for the next two to four years, the rest of the country goes about their business without even knowing that an election was taking place. One may argue that lack of voter participation does not mean that a system is bad in theory, and on the surface this may be true. However, the lack of voter participation shows that the system in practice is not meeting theoretical needs (in this case bringing democracy closer to the people). There are many reasons why people don't go out to the primary polls, one of them being is they just don't care about the primaries. Various attitudes about government and politics make voting a chore, least of all an insane practice when the vote cast now forces you to do the same thing again in a few months. This atmosphere generates only one kind of turnout to the primary polls: those who follow and have a vested interest in the election. These people are few in number, but big in ideas. “Extremists” makeup a lot of these people and candidates who don't stand a chance in the eyes of the general public are given their fare share here. I could cry about about how this affects the party by taking power from its hold on candidates by creating candidate cults that the candidate is only accountable to, but I don't care. Ultimately, the primary is a tool to decide the party's look for the next election, but it doesn't give the party much say in it what that look is going to be.

The solution would be to bring back either caucus or at the very least a closed primary. These systems force people to declare their party affiliation ahead of time, so the party can be certain that those voting in the primary would are in the party. This would in part, limit or eliminate cross over votes (people from another party monkeying around in the other's to help their party out in the general), but it would also could inspire a more dedicated party system to getting out the diversified party vote. Caucuses are even better because before you vote, a discussion can be had on to what the party should look like. This can also be used to gather data to see who in the party is participating and what groups need a bigger nudge to the caucus. If the goal is to win elections and gain power, then candidates that everyone can agree on are needed, not those on the fringes. A closed primary might help out, but a caucus would be even better.

P.s. Of course all this could be moot since fund raising, front loading (in the case of the President), and the media all determine the candidates before the people make up their minds.

Friday, September 15, 2006

A quick question on the GOP

After watching part of the Bush press conference today (I had to fast forward through his long rants) I have a sneaking suspicion that we are being played. For those who do not know what is going on, there is a collation of republicans (headed by Senator McCain (R-AZ) and former secretary of State Powell) that want to stop the President from ordering torture for detainees. Of course the President is against this and held the press conference to get the public on his side. Now for my suspicion, is it possible that the new GOP strategy is to make Congressional Republicans "look" independent [from the White House] to fool the electorate into voting for the "reformed" republicans, and then go back to business as usual after the midterm. Just a thought.

P.s. There is another level to the toture debat, the President said that he would be okay with Iran or North Korea torturing U.S. Soliders as long as they hold to our standards. Taken two ways: the President is looking a bit soft on supporting the troops, and we need to make sure our standards are high.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Are Party Politics Good For Governing?

As I write this, Peggy Lautenschlager is giving her concession speech. I can't help but feel a twang of guilt as I voted for Falk. I stand by my choice, but really it was only motivated by who could win in November. Lautenschlager has that pesky drunk driving incident which I don't personally care about, but it could prove a problem in facing the opposition in November. Peggy has served Wisconsin well having looked after environmental, consumer, and minority rights , but I feel that Kathleen Falk will do just as good in the position. This incident though, does have me questioning something that I have been wrestling with: are party politics good for governing? I'm slowly starting to think no. I will be interesting if in the course of this course my mind will change?

We have talked about party politics bringing an added check into the system. While this maybe true, it does ignore what government is supposed to do. It would be nice for government to finally solve the problems that face our country (let alone the state!) today. (Okay...I would be happy for steps that accomplish putting us in the right direction.) We need to solve a huge income disparity that affects not only those on the borderline of poverty, but those in the middle class as well. It is no longer the case that one only hears of a single mother on food stamps barely able to keep afloat, but now middle class homes are having to deal with cuts in health care as well as outsourcing. These are just a couple of issues that face us today and need to be dealt with. While we may disagree with the solutions to the problems (or wither government has a role in it, though I must point out that because private business doesn't want to work on these problems anymore that we do have them now as an issue), they are still problems that need solutions. Unfortunately I don't see any in sight. With the party system as it is, no real solutions are offered, or at least survive long enough to be considered. Because each side is looking for electoral gains and the dream of total control to implement change, the problems of today are put aside for that future. Universal health care (if that is what is needed) will never come about because that might solve the problem and therefore take it away as an election issue that could muster up votes for either side.

I think Washington was right when he warned of parties taking over. What ever checks parties put on the political system are minor when compared to the hindrances they put on governing. While at one time I would never have thought this, constant study into government and politics has made me more reluctant to say that we have it right (though I will not say that any other country has it perfect either).

Finally a pre-rebuttal to my critics:
I do not want to fully lessen the accomplishments of government, however, a lot of what we consider greatness was just a stopgap measure to prevent true societal change. I consider FDR to be one the best, if not the best, presidents, but I will admit that his New Deal was setup to bring the public back into liking to the system rather than turning to socialism (which was a growing minority at the time). As for the Voting Rights Act, well this year a few in the house decided that it was unfairly targeted at the southern states (a big duh should be echoing throughout cyberspace right now). Of course the act was put into place to correct flaws in a problem that was solved bit by half-assed bit and still today the problem exists (take the push for voter IDs, it is a poll tax since you must pay for an ID).
I think a government that offers true solutions, or good steps to the solution would be a welcomed change. I also think that the current system of parties will not offer any solutions to today's or tomorrow's problems.