Now that the primaries are over...

I have read editorials, op-ed pieces and columns written to agree and support or disagree and gripe about the primary process of our two major political parties here in the US. People seem to agree/disagree based on what their personal agenda is, i.e. why my candidate should have won.

The first part of this supposed problem lies with understanding why there are DNC and GOP primaries in the first place. And, please get the facts straight, the two parties do things differently--that means they don't do their primaries the same nationwide. On top of that, each state can and does do the primary the way their state party wants it done.

Why have a primary? Over the years, decades, scores of years, the parties have asked for input from the electorate as to whom they would like to see on the the top of the party's ticket. Remember your American history--it hasn't been that many years since the candidates were selected in smoked-filled rooms. FOR SHAME! How dare they!

And as this shocking and appalling process made headlines, people rose up and demanded better of their political parties. Everyone wants a voter's vote to mean something--count every vote. Is that really necessary? Should the non-political voter be allowed to have his wishes supersede those of political savvy party elite? In other words, selecting a party's presidential candidate needs to be made with knowledge (not wishes), finesse and expertise. Is that possible with a primary system?

There are lots of reasons to give the voters who will be voting in November an opportunity to let the party machine know who and why they support one candidate over another. But should that be binding on the convention delegates?

Evidently the Republicans say yes. Note: McCain has "enough delegate votes" to clinch the nomination. How could the GOP go into their convention and NOT put McCain on the top of the ticket this year?

However, it appears to me the DNC doesn't like the idea of the voters telling them what to do. In addition to delegates selected by the voters, they have super delegates--that is people that get to vote on the issue above and beyond what their membership wants. The super delegates are the politically experienced people who should be allowed to "correct the mistakes" made by their voters. "But can that person get elected?" "We will lose states A, B and C if we go with that candidate."

And we are only just getting started.............

Each state has its own Dem party and Repub party. Are they independent of their national organization? Well, the national group can penalize the state groups if they don't "follow the party line." We certainly experienced that here in Florida this year. The DNC and GOP both told the state parties not to change their primary date to earlier in the year. So where is the problem? Easy, in Florida the parties don't control the date of the primaries--the state legislature makes those decisions. So, is the Florida legislature bound to the dictates of the national political machines? Absolutely not. And don't you know that pissed them off big time! "How dare Florida do what it wants to!"

Let me take a moment here and enlighten those who just don't have enough of the facts. Yes, the Florida legislature upped the date of its primaries because they wanted Florida's voters to have a stronger say to the rest of the country who we believe should be on the tickets. And we want more campaigning in our state by those seeking the nominations. And we want more of the money for the ads to be spent here in our state for our votes. Right now Iowa and Vermont--two lower-population-numbers states--carry a heavy weight in directing the political needle for the other state primaries. Also, those two states garner more visits and ads and monies from the get-go. Why have the two political national committees blessed these two states' voters with that honor? We don't care; we'll position ourselves without their help.

Is this a good enough reason for the Florida legislature (and the state of Michigan) to stand up to the national committees and say, "We'll do what we want to for our state and voters"? Each Florida voter will have to answer that question for himself when the legislature is up for re-election.

Now, the primary system has still another wrinkle in it--caucuses. What really is a caucus and how does it get delegates for candidates? Caucuses are "town meetings" where everyone present speaks up for whom and for why a candidate should get the blessings of their group. Delegates are then selected to attend the national conventions and vote the voice of his group. I don't know of any caucuses within the GOP for primary decisions. There may be--I just don't know about them. BUT I do know some Dem state organizations choose to use caucuses with and without direct vote primaries.

How about another rumple in the process--precinct by precinct delegates or winner takes all delegates? Shades of the electoral college. Those who know me know I strongly support continued use of the electoral college process for electing our president. That is another article all together. (Did you know we do have some [2 or 3] states that ratio their electoral college delegates?)

Again, each state political party organization decides how they want their delegates to be selected/rationed. As I understand it, the republican state groups tend to go with the winner takes all for the entire state. And the Dems seem to prefer "one person, one vote" type decisions--get to the smallest possible form--thus precinct by precinct.

If you stand back and compare the two systems, the GOP primaries are simpler, the DNC more complex. Shades of overall philosophy by the parties, too--that is, IMHO.

You know, accountants will tell you, if you want to embezzle money from a company, all you have to do is go in and double or triple the number of accounts in the bookkeeping system so numbers/money can be hidden. Sorry, but I see this happening with the DNC system. If you want to control the decisions of the voters, just make the process more accessible to "number pushing" by the top execs.