The Washington caucus results and our election process
Last night, we witnessed one of the strangest events I have ever seen in politics. The head of the GOP in Washington state has called the Republican caucuses for John McCain and said he was the winner with Mike Huckabee running a close second. The strange part about all of this is the fact that they stopped counting with 87.2% of the votes counted and there is only a 1.8% margin of difference between the two candidates. If I have any readers from Washington, please forgive me, but I have to question this. Why would they stop counting the votes and declare the final results would not be known until February 11? You can go here to see the press release. Governor Huckabee said this morning, on Meet The Press, that there were some legal issues he was looking into. More details on that when they are released. This brings to my mind a question or two about our election process that have been boiling under the surface for a long time.
Since we were talking about Washington, let’s start with them. First of all, why do they use a caucus and a primary system to select the delegates to the state convention? Rather than go into all the details of how this happens, just read this page to see how it happens. It looks like the rules are stacked against anyone actually knowing how this all works, except for the select few who are in the know.
Now, let’s talk about Louisiana. Huckabee won the primary last night, 43% to 42%. I admit that isn’t much of a margin, but he still won. However, because he didn’t win over 50% of the vote, the delegates to the state convention are left uncommitted and will be allocated at the convention itself. Now, that makes a lot of sense.
Okay, let’s talk about my home state of Oklahoma. I have been told by someone who knows and was part of the process, that the rules were written in order to be able to control who would be elected to the state convention. The person I was talking to said he helped write the rules and they were written that way on purpose.
I am sure I could do more research and come up with more states that have crazy, off the wall rules that control the state conventions and the delegates, but I think that is enough. I may not be the smartest fella, but it appears to me that the election process, especially the primary and caucus system of electing delegates who then go to state conventions and elect the actual candidates, is a little complicated and unnecessary. In our local elections, we cast ballots and whoever wins the most votes wins the election. I see no reason that couldn’t be done with the presidential election process as well.
If the political parties insist on keeping the delegate system, each state could allocate delegates to the national convention, based on the winner of each congressional district in their state. As far as I am concerned, we could go with the popular vote. That would take a lot of the politics out of the process and there would be less of a chance of the will of the people being thwarted. As it is now, it is a mixed up process and it needs to be changed.
That’s my take!
Larry
Larry – I really think they need to follow there own rules (Lousiana) and count all the votes (Washington)… he fact is, this is not really an election, but simply the party decided who will represent them – the “will of the poeple” plays no part. I would rather the parties have whatever wierd rules they do have (as long as they actually follow them) then the governement mandating how each party must select whoi they want to represent them in the election.
Yes, I think the rules are whacky, but as they are selecting only the person to represent their party in the election, then i think they can have whacky rules… and those who don’t like them should work within the party to change them.
Tam,
My main point is this. The rules that are in affect seem to favor the will of the party establishment, instead of the will of the people. That is the main problem I have with the way the rules are set up. I do agree, they need to follow the rules they have now, until they are changed. If they do not, then the process is really going to be messed up.
Larry, I completely understand what you are saying… however, I look at it differently, and it is one of the reason I don’t like party politics. I donlt see parties reflecting the will of the people period, nor do I think they were designed too. The current process is simply to pick who will represnt the party, and I am not suprised it is mainly the party establishmnet who determines… they are not putting forth who the people want, but who the party thinks best represents the party…
personally, if we want the will of the people in the elections… we need to get rid of the parties and let anyone run (instead of just one per party) in the general election… with a few series of run-off votes. When we are limited to two main candidates – one from each major party, then the will of the peoplewill never hold sway…