MAAS: Master Program in American Studies
  • Home
    • Events
  • Courses
    • Overview 2015-2016
    • General courses 2015-2016 >
      • Methodology of Trans-Atlantic American Studies
      • American History, Politics, Economics I & II
      • American Culture : Regions and Ethnicities
      • U.S. Law and Justice in an International Context
      • Master Thesis
    • Electives 2015-2016 >
      • The American Way of Religion
      • Literary Journalism Across Cultures
      • America and the Challenge of Terrorism
      • Postmemory and Postmodern: Third-Generation Jewish American Trauma Narratives (MA English)
      • European Union Trade Policy (MSc in EU Studies)
      • European Common Agricultural Policy (MSc in EU Studies)
      • European Common Foreign & Security Policy (MSc in EU Studies)
      • Internship
    • Course Schedule 2015-2016
  • Staff
    • Professorial staff >
      • Gert Buelens
      • Philippe Codde
      • John Dick
      • Ken Kennard
      • Rob Kroes
      • Isabelle Meuret
      • David Woolner
  • Housing etc.
  • APPLY
    • Overview
    • Admission requirements
    • Request an application form
    • Additional application materials
    • Submit your complete application
  • FAQ
  • Testimony
  • Links
  • Contact
  • Blog

Why Democrats Need Not Bother Voting!

12/2/2016

2 Comments

 
Over the last couple of weeks while writing about the US Presidential elections I have asked the reader as well as myself - directly and indirectly - what is real? This is a straightforward enough question but potentially it has a series of complex answers. Hence, I would like to layout a clear, straightforward example of how difficult it is to measure the actual importance of the US primary elections when you look at the fairness and transparency of the process.
 
As each primary and caucus is held throughout the nation to identify the Democrat nominee for the Presidential race off the votes received by each candidate are counted and translated into delegate votes - there are 4,700 delegates in the Democrat Party Convention (To be held in Philadelphia during July). This suggests that the candidate who receives the most popular (regular) votes also receives the most delegate votes and therefore wins. Straightforward enough. So, if we look at New Hampshire, which is a small state, where Sanders received 60% of the vote (151,584) this was translated into 15 delegates for Sanders that subsequently go forward to the Convention. However, Clinton who received only 38% of the vote (95,252) also received 15 delegates votes to be carried forward. How? Why? Because within the Democrat Party system there are what is known as 'superdelegates'. There are 700 and they can be allocated to a candidate as required regardless or in spite of the popular vote. Hence, after this series of primaries are complete Sanders could collect a majority of the regular vote but still lose the nomination because of the allocation of these superdelegates.
 
This interim 'super system' was brought in by the Democrats during the early 1980's after the 'Carter disaster' - perceived as a calamitous presidential one term in the White House by James Earl Carter, who subsequently lost big to Reagan - so that the Party could assert more control over who could become their nominee. Like many interim systems it has yet to be replaced. This somewhat nuanced approach to democracy raises a myriad of issues. Firstly, it potentially devalues the 'real vote' that is actually taking place. This is a polite way of saying Mr or Mrs New Hampshire your vote does not actually count. Secondly, it suggests that the Democrat Party does not respect or trust the ordinary people to get the answer 'right'. By right I mean to fit in to where the Party's financial backers have placed their money. Finally, 'democracy' is all good and fine as long as you come up with the answer we want. This is a play on the old maxim in the American system of 'voting early and voting often', but now its vote early but then leave the result to us.
 
Now few of you would be surprised to learn that already many of the superdelegates in the Democrat Party have declared for Clinton. So, the only real way Sanders can get the nomination is to win BIG in the majority of the primary elections. Taking account of the Black vote that hugely favours the Clinton's (last night's TV debate between Clinton and Sanders focused on Obama's legacy of which Sanders is highly critical of, not Hilary, she was very supportive of the present incumbent simply because she wants to shore up her Black support) this seems highly, highly unlikely. So why bother with this process in the first place? Now the answer to this is straightforward. If the US sees no reason to try and reconcile the 'American Dream' with the actuality of American life why not have a voting system that projects the transparency of democracy whilst producing the answer that the 'super voters' wanted in the first place. Hence, what you think you see and what you actually get is... reality!  
 
More political magic later in the week.
 

 
KK


 
  


 
   
2 Comments
Stéphanie Verbrugghe
12/2/2016 05:02:49 am

The technical aspects of the voting system are largely unknown to me (which is in a way an indicator of what I am about to say), but it strikes me how the final numbers of delegates are barely ever mentioned. Though there is a quite extensive coverage on the American elections, if if they are 'only' primaries, news providers focus solely on the percentage of voters, giving the impression that the elections are pure democracy in action (an impression strengthened by interviews with voters and organizers, who almost without exceptions tell the interviewer that of course they are involved in this process, because this is democracy, and democracy is a proud symbol, a part of the projection that the US wants to create).

Delegates are not mentioned, not during the interviews, not during the commentary, not in the analyzing articles in the papers - and yet they would cast a very different light on the results from New Hampshire indeed! Strategic silence reigns. It makes one wonder what else is hidden away beneath our projections.

Reply
Alessio
12/2/2016 05:52:01 am

I am always struck by how much language is used “creatively” in politics. And also this seemingly small story about Democrats candidates offers a good example of that linguistic tendency.

“Interim” solutions are thought to be “exceptional” and should have a life limited in time. However, interim solutions reducing democracy or, at least, making political life less transparent and “straightforward” tend to become permanent. In spite of people continuing to think of them as “temporary” – more or less disingenuously, of course. This makes me recall, for example, the Sedition Act or the Alien Registration Act we have broadly discussed during AHPE.

Am I exaggerating? Perhaps I should not compare the dramatic times of WWI and WWII with today’s situation. But isn’t this a remarkable coincidence that the “super system” is going to impact on the “leftist” candidate of the Democratic Party?

Hence, even the primary elections seem to reiterate the refrain of American history & politics. Preserve structure and order… and stop those people thinking “outside the box”!

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Dr J Ken Kennard Professor of Politics and History - Master Program in American Studies - Universiteit Gent

    Archives

    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    March 2015
    November 2014
    September 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.