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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 21, 2008
When has the human vomitus Al Gore ever lived up to the standard he wishes to impose on the rest of us? Even with his johnny come lately "greening" of his home... it's still LESS environmentally friendly than George Bush's home... and Bush wasn't even trying.

I bet you even think that sham "Earthfest" helped the environment too, don't you!
on Jan 21, 2008

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.

While I accuse you of ignorance of the constitution, I never claimed that most americans were not.  Indeed, the ignorance of the constitution is bordering on the level of incompetance since it is the LAW of THEIR land.

As for not being Kosher, they can claim that.  I can also claim the moon is made of green cheese.  neither requires a scintilla of evidence and there is none to back up either claim.  But while we have laws that govern the rules of evidence in court, there is no laws governing making claims that are just ridiculous and stupid.  In fact, we have laws that state they can be made.  But while as you say "they maintain", not one lawsuit has ever made it past evidential review.  Different standards.  A claim is easy and requires a mouth (no brains).  A lawsuit requires at least evidence of wrongdoing.  And that is why none have ever made it past the first day.

on Jan 21, 2008

I think I'll puke.

I think I will join you.

on Jan 21, 2008

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.

And you would be wrong.  Polk was not among the instances.  First was John Q Adams. Second and third was Hayes and Harrison. Fourth was Bush.  It is not common, but it is not unheard of either. The years were 1824, 1876, and 1888.  In other words, we were over due.

on Jan 22, 2008
First was John Q Adams. Second and third was Hayes and Harrison. Fourth was Bush. It is not common, but it is not unheard of either. The years were 1824, 1876, and 1888. In other words, we were over due


I stand corrected and I thank you for providing this information. But in a way it proves the point that popular vote must decide the Presidency.

While I accuse you of ignorance of the constitution, I never claimed that most americans were not. Indeed, the ignorance of the constitution is bordering on the level of incompetance since it is the LAW of THEIR land


What can I say about this issue. There is no mention in the US constitution of the primaries, political parties or for that matter a lot of other things. I think US constitution, like all man made documents is an evolving document and one should not take too fundamentalist a view on it.

on Jan 22, 2008
I think US constitution, like all man made documents is an evolving document and one should not take too fundamentalist a view on it.


That is because primaries aren't federal events. They are state events. You won't find much of anything concerning elections themselves in the U.S. Constituition. Only how senator, representatives and presidents are to be elected. How the nominees are chosen is like most everything else not mentioned in the Constitution...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


As for an "evolving document", the U.S. Constitution defines us as a nation, if it is to be left up to whims and fads, it is meaningless.

on Jan 22, 2008

But in a way it proves the point that popular vote must decide the Presidency.

No, it proves the opposite.  The UNITED STATES is just that.  50 states united for a common purpose.  yes, California has more say in who leads us, but not to the degree that their population dictates as the other states want a say as well.  Poor little Wyoming would never be paid attention to (and then what reason would they have to even join the other 49) if it was purely population.  The EC thus gives more weight (not abnormally so, just a handicap if you will) to the smaller states so that they will not be neglected. If we had a single election for president, Wyoming (or WVA or ND, or SD or even Iowa and New Hampshire) would never see a candidate and never have their needs addressed.  One ad in a large market like LA would have more effect than every ad run in those states.

But it does not because of the EC.  And until this is the UNITED STATE of America, it is necessary and needed.

on Jan 22, 2008
But in a way it proves the point that popular vote must decide the Presidency.


What Dr. Guy said. Ignorance of history is not an argument.
on Jan 23, 2008
Ignorance of history is not an argument


I could not agree with you more. One must never never be ignorant of history, except that it can get at times quite arcane.
on Jan 23, 2008

except that it can get at times quite arcane.

Then you use it for game shows.

on Feb 07, 2008
There seems to be one aspect that few have raised. The fact that there are different methods for choosing the delegtes. The Republicans by one method and the Democrats by another. Propotional Representaion is fair, but it should be uniform throughout theUIS. Winner take all system favors money power as candidates will focus heavily on such states. And the Michigan, Florida syndrme must be avioded in order to maKE THE PROCESS MORE TRANSPARENT.
on Feb 07, 2008

The fact that there are different methods for choosing the delegtes. The Republicans by one method and the Democrats by another.

The error here is in thinking these are in any way government "elections".  They are not. Quite simply they are just a way to choose a candidate, and the constitution (and the laws of the land) say nothing on how that is to be done.  So the parties can do it any way they want to.  They could even say "We will not allow any delegates from red states" and it would not be illegal.  Because they are not "electing" anyone.  They are only "selecting" the person they want to vote for in the real election.

Up until 1968, for the most part, both parties chose their nominee in smoke filled back rooms, and no one outside of the party heirarchy had a say in it.  It was not changed due to legal reasons, but from the rank and file pressure of the rest of the party.

on Feb 07, 2008
Believe it or not Bahu, this primary election is the most participated one in U.S. history. It is rare to see this much excitement and enthusiasm over what is normally a Party event.
on Feb 07, 2008
I think what Bahu fails to understand about these current elections is that people are not out to vote against the other party, they are out to pick their Representative to run for President. This is not about Democrats vs Republicans. It would seem Bahu is several months too early in arguing about Presidential elections.
2 Pages1 2