RSS feed for comments on this post.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback-poliblog.html?p=13111
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
0.104 Powered by Wordpress
It strikes me as an unfortunate commentary on American democracy, and on the Democratic Party specifically, that petty disputes over scheduling (and specifically trying to maintain the privileged positions of IA and NH) trump allowing all the citizens of the US a voice in this process.”
I agree totally. Not only that, but as a country that claims to be the leading light of democracy (usually, not totally without justification), this is incredibly short-sighted of the Dems.
I’ve been trying to picture how we’d view this in another country, particularly in the role of election monitor.
Comment by Polimom — Tuesday, January 15, 2024 @ 9:01 am
This brings up an interesting question that maybe you could answer Steven.
While I would argue that the caucus system–as deployed in Iowa–is problematic from a democratic theory perspective in many ways (e.g. lack of secret ballot), one thing that is “more” democratic is the approximation of instant run-off.
Thus, if your first choice doesn’t garner 15%, you can switch your vote to a second choice. Therein is the question: since primaries are a creation of the parties, is there anything prohibiting either the Dems or REpubs from having a real instant run-off ballot?
On a side note, regarding the Dems behavior vis a vis the Republicans–aren’t there some primaries where the Republicans give a state’s delegates under a “winner take all” scheme while the Democrats award them proportionally?
I seem to remember that California fits into this category-but I may be wrong.
Comment by Ratoe — Tuesday, January 15, 2024 @ 2:36 pm