PRIMARY TALK: Primaries – should they be regulated?

I often hear people remark on the much maligned Presidential primary system that there is really nothing that can be done about it. Primaries are for private organizations and that’s that.

Well I 100% disagree.  First, the laws have been passed to favor the two-party incumbent system. Essentially, making it nearly impossible for a third party candidate to enter the race. There have been a few exceptions, Ross Perot being one. But most of the exceptions are usually a mere splinter segment of another party – “Bull Moose” anyone?

For that reason alone, and the affect it has on our presidential election, I would feel it acceptable to regulate the process.

But when you factor in the millions of dollars that is spent on such things as candidate security and conventions. Than I believe the case for regulation is even furthered.

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2012-06-08/who-pays-for-the-conventions-we-all-do/

Here are my thoughts:

All primaries occur on the same date. No more of this game where 20 candidates run, and by the time people like us Pennsylvanians get to vote we are left with one choice.  Perhaps let caucuses run one month prior. And while it’s not a total fix by far, this would do a LOT to clean up the American political system. And it’s not asking a lot.

And if this can’t be agreed to. Than ZERO public money should be used on the process. Yes, that’s right. Zero. And if Romney is afraid of being assassinated, than he needs to pay for his own security detail.  The Secret Service remain out of the process entirely until the candidates are officially candidates for the position of POTUS.

Advertisements
Published in: on June 20, 2012 at 2:36 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , ,

Primary Talk: Why America is Treading on Questionable Ground

American liberty is founded on the right to vote, the ability to remove our leaders and replace them with new ones. It is the gift that our Founding Fathers purchased for us with their sacrifice. It’s a beautiful gift…

A few years ago I had the pleasure to participate in an Appleseed Project event. It was a blast, we learned marksmanship, history, camradery….but the pinnacle of the weekend was a reminder about how we don’t need to have another revolution because our Founding Fathers provided us with a system that allowed for change.

There is a group, often referred to as the 3%, who believe the system is broke and there is no other choice but to enact change, by force if necessary.  The moniker is taking from the fact that during the Revolutionary war the active forces in the field fighting the tyranny of England never exceeded 3% of the colonial population.

I myself, tend to agree with the philosophy that so long as there is a means to enact change, the “trump card” option of force need never be used.

But what happens, if a large enough portion of the voter base begins to feel disenfranchised?  Even more of a question…what happens, if they are right in their beliefs that their ability to affect change is being negated?

That is a scary question… but it’s one that I feel will become more visible unless things change in our election process.

Presently, we have a system of primaries occurring, in which a tremendous amount of FAIL and fraud is occurring.  We have a candidate whom the establishment of the party has chosen, and has worked hard to see become the nominee (Romney).  While that candidate will likely become the nominee, it has been far from the “sweep” the establishment both wanted and expected, and arguably manipulated for.

Besides the media, which has repeatedly been calling for Romney in shocking fail after fail. Has there been more at hand?

We have seen a number of elections/caucuses  end with disturbing results. And it’s fairly well understood that the party leadership of the Republicans want at all cost not to see Ron Paul win.  Now I am not saying that Ron Paul would have necessarily won the elections in which questionable events have occurred.  What I am simply saying is a tremendous number of issues have arisen,  and some with very peculiar aspects. These incidents will lead to a growing feeling of disenfranchisement. That the system is merely rigged and no more than a circus and pony show.

Iowa, numerous irregularities, differences from polls, 137 precincts with irregularities, 8 precincts not reported (many of which gave no votes for Romney in 2008).  Oh, and let’s not forget moving to a secret location to count ballots.   How atrocious is Iowa’s results?  So bad, they’ll never be able to report a true winner. This is a state for which Ron Paul had a very strong position.

Nevada, once again a caucus which had bizarre behavior. High amount of precincts reported, and then suddenly a two day wait. In Ron Paul campaign’s case, it was one for which many Ron Paul supporters expected a strong result. And some feel by the fact that Ron Paul had increased his vote tallies by an avg of 200% -ranging from 85% (in FL, a state he did not campaign in) to 385% over his 2008 performance. Then suddenly in Nevada Ron Paul found himself with a meager 1.5% gain. Perhaps Ron Paul did not grow his support in Nevada (as this blogger would argue ).  But when combined with numerous delays, people complaining that figures were not being reported correctly, voters are sure to question “what just happened?”

Maine, more recently we’ve found ourselves in another similar issue with regards to Maine. Maine also has been having many questionable reports coming out of it. First off, it’s a fairly close race, but was announced for Romney while only 85% of the votes were reported. Second, a county believed to be strongly in support of Ron Paul had their caucus cancelled by a GOP party member on record for their support of Romney. Reports have circulated of individuals who worked the polls claiming the numbers being reported do not match what they reported.

And in many of these races, the votes of certain precincts have been discounted over the fact that extra ballots have been cast.  Many Ron Paul supporters feel that the GOP has engaged in election fraud. And are perhaps sabotaging precincts with strong Ron Paul support by adding irregularities so the votes are not counted.

This may or may not be so. It’s quite possible all those Ron Paul supporters are merely the loonies that the mainstream media likes to make them out to be. And you know what, A LOT OF THEM ARE!

But what it does say is that without a doubt our political system is broken. And that is a very dangerous situation in a democracy.

I understand that some will put forth that political parties are “private entities” and therefore cannot have their practices determined by the government.  I’ll disagree, and I’ll point to laws that have regulated how and what parties can function (laws mostly passed by the main two parties to exclude any alternative parties from competing).

Until you’ve tried to go through the political process of signature petitions, jumping hoops and hurdles, etc; you do not realize how hard it is to work within the system.  The laws governing our politics have essentially made the two party system the de facto system.  As such, I believe that either a) primaries need to come under regulation and observation or b) that the laws governing “major party” status should be prohibited, or at the very least revised.

At the very least, every Republican should be enabled to sue the Republican Party for fraudulent behavior. And be able to have the party penalized for it’s actions be they deliberate or negligent.

Why does this concern me?

Because if we continue to have elections in which the people feel “robbed” of their vote. We will lose the buffer of grace that Democracy provides. When people feel there is no way to enact change within the system, they will look outside of the system to enact change.

This is why I believe one of the #1 issues that should be of concern in the political year of 2012/2013 is primary reform.

***

Dear Republican Party,

THIS MEANS YOU!!!
(time to get your act together please)