This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
Time for radical change has come
Published on January 13, 2008 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events
When we follow the American elections from across the world, we notice a strage sense of disconnect between what is "democratic" in the USA and the rest of the world. The election of the American president is surely one of the most complex and mind boggling political process anywhere in the world. As the 2000 election showed, though Al Gore won the majority of the popular votes, the rival candidate was able to steal the election as he won, not discounting help in Florida, the majority of the electoral college votes. The beleagured president of Kenya can learn a lesson or two from this experience.

The US constitution nowhere recognises or even mentions political parties. Fair enough. In the eighteenth century, political parties were essentially factions that gathered around a popular leader and there was not much scope for ideological battles.However, the Primaier are held on the basis of registered voters, and registered that is in a political party. Most states recognise only the Republican and the Democratic parties making any alternative extremely difficult. Not just that, in the upcoming primaries in Michigan there will be only one name on the Democratic ballot that of Hillary Clinton. The contenders, Obama and Edwards will not even decorate the ballot sheet. Is this democratic?

In cerain states Independents can choose between either of the two registered parties. If they disagree with both they do not have a choice at all. And then there is the strage ritual of the caucus, appropriately enough an Indian word for meeting. In the caucus the election is by show of hands and not a secret ballot. Why cna there not be a standard procedure all over the US as in most democratic countries.

The primary system was introduced in the 1920's in order to break the Tammany Hall machine politics. While it served a purpose then, it is time to review the primary system and making voting and the nomination process more democratic and transparent. The primary elections along with the influence of big media and big money has made the American Presidential sweep stakes a game of big bucks and big promises.

We have to look into the past to track down the convoluted path of American presidential elections. In 1787, as Charles Beard demonstrated more than a century back, the US constitution was a compromise safe guarding the interests of southern slave oligarchy, nothern bankers and manufacurers. And they were all White Anglo Saxon and, of course, potently protestant. With such a constitution any radical change in the "Power Elite" was just not possible. While it has taken more than 200 years for a woman to make a serious bid for the White House, the fact remains that even in the unlikely event of a Hillary Clinton victory, there are 7 nations/states all over the world with women presidents.

In spite of the special features of the US presidential elections, it is extremely encouraging that a black man can make a serious bid to high office. The Jesse Jackson campaign was far too divisive to count as a serious contnder.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 14, 2008

Your ignorance shows in your choice of words.  It is no shame to admit one does not know squat about a subject.  But to pontificate on it only makes that ignorance readily apparent to any one with even a smidgen of knowledge.

Thus this blog demonstrates that any one can blog on anything, even things they have no clue about.

on Jan 16, 2008
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2008Your ignorance shows in your choice of words. It is no shame to admit one does not know squat about a subject.


I do not know what you object to so strongly: my choice of words or the fact that I have drawn attention to certain aspects of the race which, at least to me, appear ambiguous. Let me see a different take on this.
on Jan 16, 2008
Ok, first of all, the president isn't chosen by popular vote, but by the electoral college (basically a comprimise that includes the voice of the people and the voice of each state).

Primaries aren't held so that people could decide who could run for president. Primaries are held so that each party can choose their nominee for president. The "Third" parties usually do run a candidate. There usually isn't a "third" party primary though, since each of them have their own way of choosing their nominee.

The reason there isn't one primary or presidential election is, we don't have a "national election", we have 50 state elections (some territorial elections and a Washington DC election). Many decisions are made in these state elections, one of them being who gets that states Electoral College votes.

This primary election season has pretty much disproved the idea that money is all important. Romney and Clinton have both spent the most money in their respective primaries, but as we've seen, it hasn't brought them wins everywhere. On the other hand, Ron Paul has spent a lot more than Mike Huckabee. We'll see how it all turns out as the primaries unfold.

Your last two paragraghs strayed into hogwash though. Who cares if the president is Black or a Woman? They also show your contempt for America. I'm used to that from you though. I answered because you did ask some sincere and good questions.

on Jan 16, 2008

Reply By: ParaTed2k

In addition to what Parated wrote, your ignorance is rampant in the following quoted line.

As the 2000 election showed, though Al Gore won the majority of the popular votes, the rival candidate was able to steal the election as he won, not discounting help in Florida, the majority of the electoral college votes.

Why?  First see Parated's explanation.  Then READ the constitution (I am sure it has been translated into your native language).  Please note that the constitution does define the election process and what to do in the event of a tie (or no one gets a majority).  There are ennumerated roles for the states, and congress.  NOWHERE in there is there a roll for the courts.  And there never has been.  Until GORE (note the name) dragged them into it in 2000.

Your ignorance of the constitution is what I was speaking of, and the fact that you used perjorative words to describe an election that went by the books - but almost did not when the other candidate decided to steal it.  yet you absolve the thief and accuse the victim.  You would make a great defense witness in rape cases.

When you sit down at a roulette table, you agree to the rules of the game.  You may not like them, but they are the rules.  If the rules were changed in the middle of a spin (or as in 2000, after the number had landed) that would be theft, deceit and scandalous.  And that is what Gore tried to do.  With the courts actions.

He was stopped thank god, or we would indeed have a despotic government like those you tried to compare Bush to.  In your ignorance.

on Jan 18, 2008
Your ignorance of the constitution is what I was speaking of, and the fact that you used perjorative words to describe an election that went by the books - but almost did not when the other candidate decided to steal it. yet you absolve the thief and accuse the victim. You would make a great defense witness in rape cases


What Ihave argued is based on David Stanards Peoples History of the USA. I have nowhere straued into areasw where I am on a weak ground. I have been following the US electionbs and had some thoughts over them and I have shared them with the community.As for Al Gore's election is concerned, everyone agreees that in 2000 he got the plurality of the popular votes and without the goof up in Florida things couldf have been different

.
The reason there isn't one primary or presidential election is, we don't have a "national election", we have 50 state elections (some territorial elections and a Washington DC election). Many decisions are made in these state elections, one of them being who gets that states Electoral College votes


My only point was that the time has come to make the Presidentialo Polls more transparent as the person elected President has a role in world affairs that the reason for our interest in the US polls. At the time of Independence, when there was fear of an elected monarchy, I can understand the reason for 13 different elections to decide the Presidency. Why now? Is it not time to change.

Moreover, in the Mi8chigan primaries Clinton gor 67% of thre votes and her two main rivals were not even on the ballot. What was the point of thre primary when she will not be awarded a single delegate.



He was stopped thank god, or we would indeed have a despotic government like those you tried to compare Bush to. In your ignorance


Are you saying this about Al Gore?
on Jan 18, 2008
My only point was that the time has come to make the Presidentialo Polls more transparent as the person elected President has a role in world affairs that the reason for our interest in the US polls. At the time of Independence, when there was fear of an elected monarchy, I can understand the reason for 13 different elections to decide the Presidency. Why now? Is it not time to change.


Our system has nothing to do with "that was then, this is now" whims. It was set up to decentralize as much as possible (while acknowledging that a few things can't be). Creating a national election would only serve to erode that fact more than the wrongheaded mistakes we've already made (usually based on other "that was then, this is now" whims).

The system can be changed, and has been. Some changes were for the better, most were stupid mistakes that were made out of ignorance. Let's not make more mistakes just for convenience.

Moreover, in the Mi8chigan primaries Clinton gor 67% of thre votes and her two main rivals were not even on the ballot. What was the point of thre primary when she will not be awarded a single delegate.


Her two main rivals took their own names off the ballot. Yes it was a waste for the Democrats to hold a primary in Michigan, but it was their decision to make.

The fact is, the system isn't that complicated when you don't muddle it up with what you think it should be.
on Jan 18, 2008

.As for Al Gore's election is concerned, everyone agreees that in 2000 he got the plurality of the popular votes and without the goof up in Florida things couldf have been different

READ THE CONSTITUTION!  Plurality does not win the presidency.  ANd there was no screw up in Florida.  It was simply a close election (we have those - or are you implying that is against the law?).  By all laws and the constitution in effect at the time, Bush won.  Yet you persist in your ignorance and try to change the rules after the game is played.  Dont know about your corner of the world, but we call people who try to do that cheaters.

NO ONE has ever been able to even get any evidence of theft or cheating by Bush to make a rational case - only theatrics and hyperbole.  Yet the evidence against Gore is rampant and overt.  YOu persist in your ignorance which unfortunately makes you stupid as ignorance can be cured with education.  Stupidity is the persistent holding on to erroneous information long after the truth has been made available.  SO be it.

on Jan 19, 2008
By all laws and the constitution in effect at the time, Bush won. Yet you persist in your ignorance and try to change the rules after the game is played. Dont know about your corner of the world, but we call people who try to do that cheaters.


Well I'm surprised that you should say this, because even in the US there is a stronf flank that maintains that Al Gore won the 2000 elections and Florida was not quite kosher.
on Jan 19, 2008
Is it not time to change.


No, it's not.

even in the US there is a stronf flank that maintains that Al Gore won the 2000 elections and Florida was not quite kosher.


Which means what exactly? There is a "strong flank" that knows the Chicago Democrats stole the 1960 election for Kennedy. Remember, it was the Democrats who were in charge of running the election in Palm Beach County and who objected to their own election.

Neither were several other states "quite kosher" and it cut both ways, as it has in every election in our history. The fact that you think it was all about Florida shows where you get your information - from media BS rather than facts and an understanding of our Constitutional processes. The vote was the vote and it was the Democrats (Gore) who tried to "steal" votes back, selectively, only where they thought they had a chance to famboozle their way to a slim victory by changing the rules of the game after the fact. And it was Electoral College votes the Dems were chasing, not the simple popular vote - I guarantee you had Gore won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, he would have stepped right up to be sworn in without a moment's hesitation or any moral conflict (hard to have a moral conflict when you're amoral, though).
on Jan 19, 2008
To answer your title question, "No."

The process of choosing candidates to stand for election is left entirely to the states, which are free to devise any system of their choosing. That you even ask the question shows you don't really understand our republican form of government. The term Democracy has been transmogrified in the public consciousness to mean something that it isn't. We have a form of government based on the principles of democracy (small "d"), not a pure Democracy. Our Founders were smart enough to learn from history and understand that a pure Democracy places the minority at risk of oppression by the majority (mob rule).
on Jan 20, 2008
Democracy places the minority at risk of oppression by the majority (mob rule).


I am in complete agreement with this statement.

guarantee you had Gore won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, he would have stepped right up to be sworn in without a moment's hesitation or any moral conflict (hard to have a moral conflict when you're amoral, though).


On this I disagree. I think that Al Gore for all his faults is a great public figure and US can be proud of his contribution and the fact that he won a well deserved Nobel. Now from what you write you seem to agree that AL won on the popular vote tally and lost on the electoral college tally. Now tell me when was the last time this happened. I think a fellow called Polk in the 19th century had a similar victory, but you could correct me on that.
on Jan 20, 2008
well deserved Nobel.


I think I'll puke. A Peace Prize, for An Inconvenient Truth? I knew that the Nobels' guilt over inventing dynamite was deep, but I never imagined how deep. What, exactly, has Al Gore achieved in making significant progress toward world peace? Then again, when Yassir Arafat is one of your former winners, you'd think the perps of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre would get a nomination.
on Jan 20, 2008
Now tell me when was the last time this happened.


And how, exactly, is this question relevant?
on Jan 20, 2008
On this I disagree. I think that Al Gore for all his faults is a great public figure and US can be proud of his contribution and the fact that he won a well deserved Nobel.


He's a lying waste of human flesh who has scammed the world with standards he himself refuses to live up to. His winning the Nobel Peace Prize is to piss on Nobel's carcass while his family watches in horror.
on Jan 21, 2008
think I'll puke. A Peace Prize, for An Inconvenient Truth? I knew that the Nobels' guilt over inventing dynamite was deep, but I never imagined how deep. What, exactly, has Al Gore achieved in making significant progress toward world peace? Then again, when Yassir Arafat is one of your former winners


I just cannot understand your annimus against Al Gore. He well and truly worked up the idea that climate change is the one single natural threat to mankind and is advocating reduction of 'greenhouse' gasses. You can say no to the programme, but you cannot shut your eyes to ground reality.

He's a lying waste of human flesh who has scammed the world with standards he himself refuses to live up to. His winning the Nobel Peace Prize is to piss on Nobel's carcass while his family watches in horror


Well I have a different take on this.
2 Pages1 2