Corrupt primary system needs reform

PRIMARY SYSTEM RESEMBLES HONG KONG DEMOCRACY

   TIME FOR REFORM OF PRIMARY SYSTEM

BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES ARE FLAWED

 

 

 

When Hong Kong was returned to the Peoples Republic of China in 1997 by the United Kingdom, China guaranteed that Hong Kong would be able to be semi-autonomous and that free elections would be held in 2017.  When the rules for elections were released in 2014, it was revealed that the candidates for election would be selected by a nominating committee appointed by the Chinese Government. Any candidate would need to be approved by at least 50% of the nominating committee. So in effect, the people will have a choice of approved candidates all who will be the same except for their appearance and name. The Honk Kong residents  have been protesting off and on for the last three years. Their chances of having elections with the candidates of their choice are slim to none. Is it really any different with our nominee selective process in the USA?

 

This is the first year that the inequalities of the primary system have come under scrutiny. The most glaring and obvious problem is in the democratic primary, where 712 of the delegates are appointed by the party leaders, this is close to 1/3 of the 2382 delegates needed to win the nomination. This makes it nearly impossible for anyone not approved by the party to win. On the Republican side, the manipulation starts by how certain states are winner take all and some a proportional, every state has different rules that are continually changing. It is obvious that the winner take-all-states change from year to year, and this year they were states with establishment candidates with strong ties to these states.  While these rules are not a guarantee, they definitely are a thumb on the scale of the process. The other place for reform is the caucus system, which if you look at the numbers you will see this system discourages participation, the amount of votes actually cast in this system is far lower than regular election process. This is an antiquated and undemocratic process, in many cases voters have to vote in public after being lobbied who they should vote for.

How can this system be reformed?. There should be a consistent system. If the first  3 or 4 states are proportional, that would be ok, the candidates have months to campaign in these states, and it gives them time to hone their message. Shortly into the process it should  go to winner take all, this would be a fair process in all states, not just in states that benefit certain candidates. It would also negate the possibility of no candidate  reaching a majority of delegates.  States should be able to have a caucus for as long as they want with all the lobbying they want, but the voting should be the next day by the regular process. The states could start out as they do now, one from the Midwest, one from the New England one from the South, I would add one from the West.  Then the states should be lumped up in areas to save travel and advertising money. New England, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast etc. with some time off in between to recoup and fundraise. This could move from west to east or be picked at random but would eliminate traveling long distances in a short time frame. This would be a much fairer process, and maybe we could actually get some candidates that the voters would select, rather than being manipulated by a small group of insiders. This may very well encourage more participation by the citizens and more confidence in our government. 

Reform will not happen unless voters put pressure on the parties to make changes before the next election cycle.