So much time, energy, and money is being spent (wasted?) on the primaries (and then the presidential election itself) that it’s tempting to tune out and perhaps not even participate in our elections at all.
Everyone I know and talk with is unhappy in one way or another with the candidates, with Congress, and with our political system. But if we don’t participate in some way, then we are part of the problem.
So for Democrats, what to do? There are legitimate arguments to be made for supporting either of the two candidates now vying for the nomination. Here are three recent articles that to me are worthy of the time it takes to read them.
Voting Without Illusions by Micah Sifry. For me, the strengths of this article are Micah’s points about the attention that must be paid beyond the presidential race.
Hilliary Clinton and the Complex System by Jack Danger. Choosing Clinton over Sanders.
There Is No Bernie Sanders Movement by Jamelle Bouie. For those who support Sanders, the need to be engaged beyond this campaign.
Your thoughts and comments are welcomed.
Richard said:
A reader adds this article: “Why Republicans Don’t Want to Marry Democrats” by Chris Mooney – Clearly a catchier title than the ones I linked to above, but still of interest.
See: https://goo.gl/pPn8LY
Ben Shute said:
Thanks for these three articles. I had seen Jack Danger’s previously, and found it helpful. While I find much of what Bernie Sanders says to be appealing, I was concerned about some of his answers in the NY Daily News (I think it was?) interview – he really didn’t seem to know how to go about actually breaking up the big banks, for example. But of greater concern is that – as far as I know – he has done little to mobilize his supporters to in turn support down ballot “progressives,” such as Donna Edwards and Maggie Hassan, for example, or (again as far as I know) to share some of his financial support with such candidates. A revolution requires troops, not just a leader.
Micah Sifry’s piece identifies several flaws in what we call our democracy, but I think there are some small steps or reforms that could help, albeit perhaps incrementally. The New York City system of public financing – multiple matches for small contributions – could expand powerfully on Sanders success with small donations. Nonpartisan redistricting commissions, which now exist in some states, can reduce gerrymandering. Nonpartisan primaries, especially when combined with rank-choice voting, can help increase diversity of points-of-view among candidates and reduce the tendency of the most extreme candidates to be selected in each patry’s primaries. No one of these is a “silver bullet,” and they are admittedly wonky. Then there are changes such as same-day (election day) voter registration, automatic voter registration, and expanded voting days, to make voting easier and increase participation.
Richard said:
B,
Thanx for that Ben.
I agree that there are no “silver bullets” and that there is need to do more than simply like what candidates are saying.
For me, one of the most discouraging aspects of what’s happening with our elections is the movement away from making it easier to vote and moving toward making it more difficult to do so. As even those who are leading this movement sometimes acknowledge, it’s not about protecting the ballot but about suppressing the vote.
Because it is possible to do something — as in using one’s power to block something (i.e., Supreme Court nomination) — doesn’t make it right to do so. So too with voting laws and gerrymandering, no matter which party is using its power to do that.
Anon-2 said:
I just take it for granted that there is voter fraud. When people say “there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud”……I say, “sez who?”>
Just ask anyone from Massachusetts, where Billy Bulger opening joked “the election is always in doubt until the returns form St. Augustine (cemetery) are in….” It was an art form in MA.
One person, one vote is a good thing, right? Any objection to measures meant to assure this? So why the objection to voter ID laws? Do you think minorities and other democrats are too stupid or lazy to get valid, free government ID’s?
Lydia said:
Voter fraud is a false problem. Sure, it happens (and in Massachusetts perhaps more than other places), but the restrictions put in place to prevent it hurt more potential voters than solve fraud problems. It’s a balancing act…I would rather have a few folks from St. Augustine voting than an entire neighborhood prevented from voting. In an imperfect world, I’m for more people having access than fewer.
Anon-2 said:
Can you give me an example of measures meant to prevent voter fraud hurting? I can only believe voter fraud is a “false problem” if I believe voting is meaningless. I agree with Richard…….more fraud helps democrats and hurts republicans…..(actually, he put it more nicely….dens benefit from higher turnout). And the dems are lying when they say voter id laws are racist…..actually, they are proving my point about the latent racism of many dems…..in effect, they are saying minorities are too stupid to get an id.
Anon-2 said:
openly joked, that is…