photo credit:mishtalk.com
Both the Democrat and Republican parties have been
actively trying to disenfranchise voters, especially primary voters. Their methods
are different, but both parties (or perhaps more accurately, the so-called "Uniparty") can achieve the same result. That result is stripping
the power of the vote away from the registered voter and shifting that power to
the party committee and establishment elites.
Politico reports on this issue within the Democratic party:
A growing number of
Democratic senators support reforming the party’s superdelegate system — a move
that would dilute their own power in the presidential nominating process but
satisfy Bernie Sanders and his millions of supporters as Democrats move to
unify for the general election.
Politico interviewed
nearly 20 of Sanders’ colleagues over the past week and found a surprisingly
strong appetite for change, including among influential members of the party
establishment such as Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a top prospect for vice president.
More than half the senators surveyed support at least lowering the number of
superdelegates, and all but two said the party should take up the matter at
next month’s convention in Philadelphia, despite the potential for a
high-profile intraparty feud at a critical moment in the campaign.
The findings point to
growing momentum among Democrats for changing a system that’s been criticized
for giving party bigwigs undue sway over the nominee at the expense of the
grass roots. But powerful Democratic Party constituencies, including the Congressional
Black Caucus, are firmly opposed. And lawmakers who are open to reform disagree
over how far-reaching it should be.
. . .
Senator Sherrod Brown is on record on the subject
of superdelegates. He just doesn’t care about the electorate:
“I want Bernie in the
fold, I want him enthusiastic,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, another
potential VP choice. “I’m fine with whatever they negotiate, I just don’t care
about superdelegates. I don’t care about the whole thing.”
Then there is the GOP strategy. In this election
cycle, it included rewriting the GOP primary rules, state by state, to implement what
Sundance dubbed The Splitter Strategy, a plan that would ensure that no GOP candidate
crossed the finish line before the July convention, so the selection process
could go instead to a contested floor vote, and the GOP elite could anoint Jeb!, as in Jeb’ll Fix
It. When Trump upset that apple cart, the GOP fractured further, with the emergence
of the Never Trump bloc that still hopes to deprive Trump of the nomination in
July. All this talk, especially from Speaker Ryan about letting Republicans vote their conscience, is intended to undermine the primary results that gave
Trump more votes than any other Republican candidate in history. Haugland has
been outspoken on his contempt for the grassroots voter (via another politico report):
North Dakota’s Curly
Haugland, who is on the convention rules committee, has long argued that no
rules change is necessary for delegates to vote their conscience. He contends that
party rules require delegates to vote freely and that they can ignore any state
laws and rules that purport to bind delegates to the results of primaries and
caucuses. Haugland insists his effort is not meant to oppose Trump – he’s
pushed it for years – but rather is about
empowering the party’s elected delegates to choose the GOP nominee. [emphasis
added]
What is the purpose of primary elections, if the
party “leadership” and rules committees can disregard the voters and decide who
the nominees are themselves?
# # #
