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
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
RSS Feed
