Click here for info on the Print Journal (and to purchase your copy)!

Just 50 Weeks Left: It Doesn’t Matter What You Think

By Mark Grueter

---------------------------------------

On November 21, 1963, some forty years ago, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. Anyone who still professes to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman is either a liar or merely unaware of the facts. One does not have to buy into all of what Oliver Stone tried to sell us in order to conclude that there had to have been a conspiracy in Dallas, by definition. Just watch the History Channel this week; they’re airing a special called “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” which makes it plain that there were at least two shooters and that there was a massive cover-up at many levels. The mere fact that our government has not come clean about this sordid affair is reason alone for us to be skeptical about everything it does and says. If this were an actual democracy, this conspiracy would have been uncovered a long time ago.

But America is not a democracy or even a legitimate republic. More evidence of this came recently when several states announced, matter-of-factly, that they would not be holding elections this spring. They point out, quite correctly, that the Democratic nominee for President will be chosen by a handful of states; namely, the states that vote in the early stages of the primary. Other states, including Kansas, Colorado, Maine, New Mexico, Utah and Washington have decided to cancel their primaries because they serve “no practical purpose.” And other states could follow in the future. It is a complete waste of money to hold elections that do not matter. “Why waste $7 million of scarce state money,” asks the governor of Washington. I suppose only to maintain the myth that the primary process is legitimate.

The primary cycle has become more and more front-loaded and more and more degraded. With increased media attention and a cutthroat pressure to raise exorbitant amounts of money, the process is becoming less and less democratic. Every four years, a smaller percentage of Americans end up participating in deciding who the nominees will be.

The system is obviously flawed, unfair, and undemocratic. Many politicians defend it by betraying an irrational commitment to tradition. They go to great lengths to make specious arguments in this vein.  And an apathetic public allows them to continue with this nonsense. How can any reasonable person justify the fact that Iowans have more influence over the election than Californians or New Yorkers?

Another problem with the state-by-state voting process is that there is no consistency in the rules. Nominees are chosen by whoever receives the greatest amount of delegates. But some states have a “winner-take-all” delegate awarding process while others divide their delegates up proportionally to the number of votes each candidate receives. So Candidate X could win more states and more votes than Candidate Y, but if Candidate Y is lucky enough to have captured all the “winner-take-all” states, Candidate Y could still win the nomination. Again, this is undemocratic and it is absurd.

Why construct so elaborate a process that only results in unfairness? There are much simpler ways of being unfair, like back in the day when nominees were handpicked by party bosses in smoke-filled rooms. And it is not as if it would be difficult to set up a fair voting process. This may sound novel, but why not have every state vote on the same day? This way, all voters would have equal influence.

An even more radical idea would be for all states to abandon the “winner-take-all” policy of awarding delegates. Each state could divvy up their delegates proportionally to the number of votes each candidate received. This would be fairer because it would rule out the possibility that Candidate X could beat Candidate Y with a lesser number of votes nationwide.

Presently, nominations are handed over to whoever can buy off the most votes. Is it just a coincidence that those who attract the most number of rich donors end up winning their party’s nomination? It is a sad fact that John McCain likely would have beaten George W. Bush in 2000 had he been able to compete on the fundraising front. We do not just need campaign finance reform; we need a complete overhaul of the electoral process that will upset a large number of rich, stubborn, and powerful people. And this is exactly why nothing is being done about it.

This ludicrous situation is now imperiling the presidential campaign of Wesley Clark. Because Clark had not been campaigning in Iowa for the last two years like everyone else, he was not able to buy off any caucus voters. Most caucus designees in the state are already committed to other candidates. So Clark is skipping Iowa and is now just getting started in New Hampshire. He has had a difficult time gaining traction there because so many people are already committed to Howard Dean. As a New Hampshire native this bothers me. I plan on writing a letter on behalf of Clark and sending it out to everyone I know in the state. In a place where less than 100,000 people vote, it could make a difference.

Clark has been doing an excellent job lately defending himself against scurrilous charges. A few people in the army have been taking cheap shots at him, making unsubstantiated and fuzzy accusations about his “character.” As Fred Kaplan explained this week in Slate, the army is simply pissed off that Clark was right on the Kosovo question and they were wrong. As Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Yugoslavia, Clark insisted that ground forces would not be needed in order to force Slobodon Milosevic out. Ground forces were never sent in and Milosevic is now sitting in The Hague where he belongs. Clark also went over the head of Clinton’s inept Secretary of Defense William Cohen in order to convince the President that we should intervene.

First in his class at West Point, Clark is probably the brightest guy in the pack. And his experience and credentials speak for themselves. The most qualified candidate in the race, it would be a colossal shame if he does not win the nomination because of a blatantly idiotic system.

Click here for Grueter's previous column.

---------------------------------------

Mark Grueter is pursuing a Masters in Liberal Studies at the Graduate Faculty for Political and Social Sciences. He is the Publications Manager and Web Editor for The Canon, the school's student publication and is a contributor to Stop Smiling, a magazine based in Chicago. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.  Grueter may be contacted at [email protected].

© 2003 Me Three