<div style="background-color: none transparent;"><a href="http://www.rsspump.com/?web_widget/rss_ticker/news_widget" title="News Widget">News Widget</a></div>

This primary election cycle is showcasing the fundamental unfairness of the way political parties select their nominees. Republicans are aghast that some states choose their nominees at state conventions rather than letting voters choose. Democrats are becoming cognizant that their vote is subservient to the vote of their Governors and members of the U.S. Congress, who in their role as a Superdelegate can vote at the Democratic National Convention for a candidate their constituents rejected. In many respects, political parties are similar to private yacht clubs, country clubs, and polo clubs. The parties decide how they will select their candidates, and the candidate who wins the popular vote can be purged at the convention.

While the blatant electoral inequities of the primary have recently been exposed, it is also time to expose the incongruities of the General Election process. Only about 10 states are showdown states (states which can swing to either party in an election) where an individual’s vote actually matters. The voters in the other 40 or so states (including Massachusetts), which constitute about 80% of the electorate, are ignominiously relegated to the electoral sidelines, watching the candidates from their television sets delivering hortatory speeches in those few electorally critical states. Although it seems surreal, in 2012, about two-thirds of General Election campaign events took place in just four states.

Interestingly, there is a state-by-state movement which would ameliorate this situation by making every vote equal throughout the nation. It is called “The National Popular Vote Plan.” Formulated by Computer Scientist John Koza, the proposal is an interstate compact where participating states agree to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement would take effect once enough states, constituting the requisite 270 electoral votes needed to win a presidential election, agree to participate in the compact. The compact has already been agreed to in 11 states and in the District of Columbia, comprising a total of 165 electoral votes. It would be actuated only if enough states representing the other 105 electoral votes signed on to the compact.

The plan guarantees that the winner of the National Popular Vote actually wins the General Election and that every vote will in fact be coveted by political campaigns. A vote in Jamestown Rhode Island would be as important as a vote in Jamestown, Virginia. A vote in Marblehead, Ohio, would muster as much weight as a vote in Marblehead, Massachusetts. A vote in Stillwell, Wisconsin would be equal to a vote in Stillwell, Oklahoma.

Under the current electoral regime, 48 states award literally all of their electoral votes to the person who wins their state. The District of Columbia does the same. The two exceptions, Maine and Nebraska, allocate two at-large votes to the winner of the state, and the rest by Congressional District. This means that in the 2012 election, the 4,839,958 votes for Mitt Romney in California were obliterated from the pages of electoral time, as Barack Obama collected all 55 Electoral votes from the state. Contrariwise, the 3,308,124 voters who selected Barack Obama in Texas saw their votes disappear, as Mitt Romney mustered all 38 electoral votes from the Loan Star State.

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, where the Constitution was drafted and debated, there was an impasse as to how to select a President. One proposal had the U.S. Congress select the President. Another mandated that State Legislators choose the President. Still another called for a direct popular vote.

Arriving at no clear resolution, the conventioneers bequeathed to the states plenary authority to choose how they want to elect the President. Article ll, Section l, Clause ll of the Constitution states: “Each state shall appoint, in such a manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors.” How they do that is their prerogative. In fact, in the first Presidential election, only three states instituted winner-take-all statutes.

Contrary to the prevailing contemporary belief, the winner-take-all system is not a creature of the U.S. Constitution, but of partisan politics. In most cases, the political party which enjoyed a majority in the respective State Legislatures was likely to vote for the Presidential candidate of that party. Accordingly, in a partisan scheme, states began to adopt winner-take-all rules for selecting their Presidential candidate in order to maximize the number of votes for the party’s Presidential candidate. U.S. Senator Thomas Heart Benton of Missouri, in discussing the winner-take-all system, averred in 1824: “It was adopted by the leading men of those states, to enable them to consolidate the vote of the state.”

The greatest danger under the winner-take-all regime is that a Presidential candidate could win the Presidency having pocketed less popular votes than another candidate. This situation occurred in 1824, 1876, 1888, and in 2000. In addition, this result became perilously close to occurring in 1880, 1916, 1960, 1968, and in 2004.

The current electoral system disenfranchises both large and small states. Of the four largest states: California, Texas, New York, and Florida, candidates only target Florida. The other three are “safe,” non-competitive states. In fact, party nominees use the three non-showdown states merely as electoral ATM’s. A candidate will parachute into Los Angeles, Houston, or New York City, speak at a private fundraiser, beseech opulent benefactors to donate to their campaigns, and then immediately egress from these states to spend that money in the states that matter, showdown states such as Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio.

The disproportionate influence of Ohio is patently obvious. During Barack Obama’s first term in office, either Obama or Vice President Joe Biden appeared in the electoral goldmine state about once every three weeks. During the 2012 General Election cycle, an astonishing 73 of the 253 campaign events occurred in the Buckeye state. Six days prior to Halloween, Obama joked that “trick or treaters” should come to the White House. He added: “If anybody comes from Ohio, they can expect a Hershey bar ‘this big’ [moving his hands outward].”

The practical application of this is that candidates are forced to address issues important to voters in only these few showdown states, like the economic embargo on Cuba in Florida, ethanol subsidies in Iowa, and the loss of manufacturing jobs in Ohio, while ignoring water rights issues in the Central Valley region of California, property rights issues in the Texas panhandle, and the needs of the Upstate New York economy.

Alternatively, small states are also ignored in the present system. Of the 13 smallest states, only New Hampshire is remotely competitive in a General Election. The other 12 states are “safe states” where the electoral outcome is a foregone conclusion. For example, Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming have not supported a Democrat for President since Lyndon B. Johnson won the nation in a landslide victory in 1964. Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Vermont all gave Obama more than 60% of the vote in 2012, and are politically immutable states for the Democrats. In fact, no Presidential candidate has made a formal campaign stop in Rhode Island since Richard M. Nixon in 1960. Nixon had made an injudicious campaign promise to campaign in all 50 states.

Voters in showdown states may conclude that the current system works to their geopolitical advantage, but they must be advised that the current winner-take-all system of voting is like an electoral roulette wheel: It stops on a state for consecutive election cycles and then moves on to other states. While today the needs of the Cuban-American community in South Florida, the steel manufacturer in Pennsylvania and the grain farmer in Virginia may muster an abundance of attention from presidential candidates, they must remember that they will not have this status in perpetuity. They could soon join the ranks of the Long Island fisherman, the Texas rancher, and the chicken farmer in Sussex County, Delaware, as constituencies that are ignored by presidential nominees.

Americans have now been exposed to the injustices of the American primary system, including the influence of Superdelagates, close primaries, and conventions choosing delegate slates rather than the voters. It is also important for voters to be conscious of the inequities in the General Election process. Every vote is not given equal consideration: far from it. The Presidential nominees disregard the preponderance of American voters. Worse, they have no electoral incentive to cultivate support from the preponderance of the nation. As former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (1991-1999) reminds us, this has a direct effect on how the winner conducts his/her Presidency. “People who are elected to office remember what they learned when they were campaigning. It’s important that these candidates campaign in all states.” The National Popular Vote Compact would transmogrify the way Presidents are elected, forcing the party nominees to be attentive to voters in all states, not just voters in states where the electoral roulette wheel lands in a particular election cycle.

Massachusetts voters, like voters in all “safe states,” should have votes of equal weight as those voters who are fortunate enough to reside in “showdown states.” The present Presidential voting system is riddled with inequities. Sadly, “I’m from Massachusetts: My Vote Doesn’t Count.”

Follow Rich Rubino on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RichRubinoPOL


Supporters of Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders are flocking to local town hall meetings asking why their U.S. Representative or Senator is a Superdelagate for Hillary Clinton when their district or state supported Sanders. They ask, “Shouldn’t they represent the will of the people?” Contrariwise, on the Republican side, supporters of Donald Trump are incensed that his rival Ted Cruz secured 34 of 37 delegates in Colorado. The delegates were selected not by the voters but at the state convention. Trump excoriated the system as “corrupt” and bemoaned: “We’re supposed to be a Democracy.”

There is an inherent misunderstanding on the part of many voters that political parties are Democratic institutions. While they are regulated, political parties have plenary authority to select their nominees in any way they choose. They are under no obligation to allow the voters to select their nominees. In fact, voters in most states and territories vote in the primary and caucus system not for a specific candidate, but for a slate of delegates pledged to support a candidate. Surprisingly, they do not vote directly for individual candidates.

Ken Rudin, the host of NPR’s Ken Rudin’s Political Junkie maintains: “People don’t know – or they forgot – that party leaders can still have their way if voters fail to make a clear choice. That’s why we have superdelagates (on the Democratic side) as well as state party conventions. They are the last chance for the establishment to display the power they once routinely had. In the rare times when the voters and the party don’t see eye to eye (i.e., Republicans 2016), the party will do what it can do to have its way.”

The term “political party” is not embedded in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, many of the nation’s founders opposed their formation. In fact, in his 1796 Farewell address, George Washington warned about the “baneful effects of the spirit of party.” Thomas Jefferson declared: “If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”

However, the founders realized that the establishment of political parties was inevitable. James Madison begrudgingly concluded: “In every political society, parties are unavoidable.” He said they “must always be expected in a government as free as ours.”

Madison proved correct. During the early years of the Republic, supporters of a centralized federal government, led by U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, formed the Federalist Party, while the exponents of a decentralized federal government led by U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, formed the Democratic-Republican Party.

Contrary to conventional belief, the current practice of selecting Presidential nominees is far more Democratic than it has been for most of American history. Originally, members of Congress would caucus to decide their party’s nominee. Then political conventions were established wherein delegates to the convention choose the nominee. The delegates are not always representative of the vox populi, but are often hand-selected by the party’s high command.

The Presidential primary process was first utilized in 1912, and it was far from Democratic. Only fourteen states held primaries and they proved functionally impotent. Former President Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican, became disillusioned with the more conservative policies of his Republican, handpicked successor, William Howard Taft. He challenged Taft in the primaries, telling news reporters, “My hat’s in the ring. The fight is on, and I’m stripped to the buff.” Roosevelt mustered 284 delegates in the primaries, compared to just 125 for Taft. However, Taft secured the nomination because of the support of “pledged delegates” (individual Republicans who had a vote at the convention). Roosevelt subsequently formed the Progressive Party and ran as their nominee. Democrat Woodrow Wilson defeated both Taft and Roosevelt.

In 1952, U.S. Senator Estes Kefauver (D-TN) won 12 of the 15 Democratic primaries. He had even defeated Incumbent President Harry S. Truman in the New Hampshire Primary, forcing Truman to announce that he would not seek re-election. Kefauver was a folk hero of sorts for his role as Chairman of a Special Senate Committee on Organized Crime. At the time, television was an inchoate medium; many stores placed the new gadget in their windows so that spectators could watch the hearings.

However, the choice of primary voters had little impact. The convention chose Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson, who had not entered any primaries and who was not even a Presidential candidate. In fact, Stevenson was actively seeking re-election as Governor. A Draft Stevenson movement emerged, and his name was placed in nomination. Stevenson reluctantly accepted the Democratic nomination.

In 1968, Vice President Hubert Humphrey entered only one primary, South Dakota, which he lost. Humphrey supported the Vietnam policy of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Many members of the Democrat establishment supported the war, while rank-and-file Democrats did not. Instead, they supported U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-MN). Humphrey forces placed “favorite son” candidates as substitutes for Humphrey in some states. They then transferred their delegates to Humphrey. Though Humphrey had not won any primaries himself, the convention chose Humphrey. Reflecting on the way the Democratic Party worked against his nomination, McCarthy asserted that he “set out to prove…that the people of this country could be educated and make a decent judgment…but evidently this is something the politicians were afraid to face up to.” Eventually McCarthy reluctantly endorsed Humphrey, telling his supporters: “I’m voting for Humphrey, and I think you should suffer with me.” Humphrey lost the General Election to Republican President Richard M. Nixon.

In many respects, the political parties today take the will of the voter under advisement, but party officials are not legally bound to ratify them. Even recently, there are examples of candidates who were out of the party’s mainstream who actually won delegates, but who were not seated. In 2000, perennial Democratic Presidential candidate Lyndon Larouche pocketed 22% of the vote in the Arkansas primary. Under state party rules, he was eligible to be awarded seven to ten of the state’s 48 delegates to the National Convention.

However, Democratic Party Co-Chairman Joe Andrew had ordered all state party chairs to “disregard any votes that might be cast for Larouche.” Andrew alleged LaRouche: “fails to show commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair.”

A lawsuit was filed on behalf of Larouche and his delegate slate asking the judge to order that they be seated at the state and National Convention. However, Judge John Ward denied the request. He ruled that the state had the right to “refuse to . . . seat delegates for Lyndon La Rouche,” and ruled that the state could instead award those seats to delegates supporting Vice President Al Gore.

Many voters believe political parties are mandated to award their nomination to the candidate who garners the most votes. Actually, there have been examples where a candidate garners fewer votes, but still musters his party’s nomination. In 1972, U.S. Senator Hubert Humphrey (running again for the nomination) actually won 67,921 more popular votes than the party’s nominee, U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD). However, California had a winner-take-all rule, meaning that despite the fact that McGovern won the Golden State by only about five percentage points, he secured all of the state’s 271 delegates.

As Richard Winger, the Editor of Ballot Access News emphasizes, political parties are independent from the government. “All over the world that is true, except in highly authoritarian countries.” In fact, the Helsinki Accords, signed by the U.S. and thirty-four other countries in 1975 calls for: “a clear separation between the State and political parties; in particular, political parties will not be merged with the State.”

The bottom line is that political parties are under no obligation to act Democratically in selecting their Presidential nominees. Curly Haugland, a North Dakota delegate, accurately summed up the process when he told CNBC: “Political parties choose their nominee, not the general public, contrary to popular belief.”


Anybody But Trump, Anybody But Carter, Anybody But McGovern

April 1, 2016

The party establishment is aghast. An insurrectionist candidate is close to securing the party’s nomination. Fears arise on the part of the party establishment that this candidate will get clobbered in the General Election. Party chieftains and financial benefactors panic because the insurrectionist candidate is not beholden to them. A cacophony of voices emerges to […]

Read the full article →

Could Democratic Party History Repeat Itself in the Republican Party in 2016?

March 10, 2016

An insurrectionist presidential candidate stuns his party’s establishment by pocketing the party’s nomination. His views do not line up with mainstream figures in his party. He is charismatic and taps into the undercurrent of populist indignation against the corporate and political elite from rank-and-file party members. Many elected members of the party bolt and form […]

Read the full article →

Dirty Political Tricks From American Politics Done Dirt Cheap

March 3, 2016

Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is taking heat for dirty tricks allegedly orchestrated by his campaign. The tricks range from photoshopping an image to make it appear that one of his opponents, Marco Rubio, is gleefully shaking hands with President Barack Obama, to allegedly creating a counterfeit Facebook profile for conservative U.S. Representative Trey Gowdy […]

Read the full article →

A Bernie Sanders Presidency Could Revolutionize Bipartisanship

February 19, 2016

Conventional wisdom dictates that should Bernie Sanders overcome all electoral hindrances and assume the presidency, much of his agenda would not get through the U.S. Congress. Since Sanders comes from the left wing of the political spectrum, it would be nearly impossible for him to persuade moderate Republicans to vote for his proposals. Traditionally, presidents […]

Read the full article →

Brian Schweitzer Would Be a Formidable Independent Presidential Candidate

February 2, 2016

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is considering entering the Presidential sweepstakes as a centrist Independent. He will likely enter only if the Democrats nominate Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders and the Republicans select conservative Donald Trump. However, should the Democrats nominate the more centrist leaning Hillary Clinton and should the Republicans nominate Mr. Trump […]

Read the full article →

Dale Bumpers: The Man Who Could Have Been Elected President

January 27, 2016

U.S. Senator Dale Bumpers (D-AR), who served from 1975-1999, recently died. Bumpers had flirted with a bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination three times, but ultimately chose not to seek the nomination. Had he run in 1988, Bumpers would have been a good bet to win the nomination and ultimately the Presidency. Bumpers was a […]

Read the full article →

A Trump-Clinton Matchup Would be a Trip Back to the Future in Foreign Affairs

January 13, 2016

Republican Presidential front-runner Donald Trump harbors an aversion to military interventions. This is out-of-step with contemporary mainstream thinking in the Republican Party. Yet non-interventionism in foreign conflicts was once the predominant view in the Republican Party. Contrariwise, Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton has exhibited support for a muscular foreign policy. Her interventionist proclivities in the foreign […]

Read the full article →

Former GOP Frontrunner Jeb Bush’s Battle With “Restless Insurrectionist Syndrome”

December 22, 2015

Jeb Bush, the early Republican frontrunner, is presently polling in the single digits despite an ambitious advertising blitz. Bush was a weak frontrunner from the beginning, winning plaudits from entrenched members of the GOP hierarchy and obtaining support from traditional Republican benefactors at a time when establishmentarians are reviled by the body politic. Conservative insurrectionist […]

Read the full article →

Fatal error: Call to undefined function thesis_footer_area() in /home/mbm1984/webapps/politigeek/wp-content/themes/thesis_18/lib/html/frameworks.php on line 33