Super Tuesday: The Illusion of Democracy

I have voted in every presidential primary since 1972, but because I live in California, my vote has never counted. By the time Californians got to vote, the candidate for each party had already been selected by voters in other states. When California moved up its primary to become part of so-called "Super Tuesday," it looked like my vote would finally count.

Prior to the Iowa caucuses that kicked off the 2008 election season, washingtonpost.com provided a 25-question feature, "Choose Your Candidate," that allowed you to match your own views on issues with those of the views of the candidates, as submitted by their campaigns, without having the candidates' names attached to their positions. I never finished the Republican questionnaire because the Republican candidates seemed to be aggressively competing to attract voters from among the 33% of Americans who think President Bush is doing a good job. I am not one of those people.

The Democratic questionnaire included answers submitted by the campaigns of 6 of the 8 Democratic candidates (Kucinich and Gravel did not respond). I answered as many of the questions as I deemed relevant and then, extremely curious, I clicked through to see with which candidates I was ideologically most aligned. Here are my results:

Joe Biden: 16
Bill Richardson: 16
Chris Dodd: 15
John Edwards: 2
Hillary Clinton: 0
Barack Obama: 0

Like a good citizen, I began reading more about the ideas and positions of Biden, Richardson and Dodd. I needn't have bothered because, by the time I did get to vote, all three of my candidates of interest had dropped out, as had, for that matter, John Edwards. I was left with a choice between my two zeros.

Supporters of Clinton and Obama will tell you that their candidates rose to the top because they were more electable than the other Democratic candidates. This is not true. What counts in terms of electability is not how the Democratic candidates match up against each other, but how they would match up one-on-one with the Republican candidate, presumably John McCain. You cannot convince me that Hillary Clinton would have an easier time defeating McCain than would, say, Chris Dodd. Another alleged factor of importance is experience. You cannot convince me that Barack Obama, a first-term U.S. Senator, is more qualified to be president of the United States than Bill Richardson, who served in Congress for 14 years, served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and as Secretary of Energy and is currently the governor of New Mexico.

Clinton and Obama advanced not because of their positions on issues or because of their qualifications, but because they were successfully marketed as celebrities, and because, early on, they attracted major financial contributions from large law firms, securities and investment firms and from the real estate industry.

The media, television in particular, played a major role in winnowing down the candidates to two Democrats and two Republicans not so much because they cared about the individual candidates, but because one-on-one contests attract better ratings than confusing multi-candidate races. To continue the sports analogy implied by the name "Super Tuesday," the day's primaries and caucuses are being pitched to us like conference championships: the winner of the Clinton-Obama game will play the winner of the McCain-Romney game in the National Championship.

I will vote in the primary, even though all of the candidates I liked are already gone, but I will do so with disappointment, knowing that, like the voters in more than 40 states, I never got a chance to vote for the candidates with whom I most agreed.

Comments

[Rule Of Law]

David, every so often a blogger comes along and has the courage to say the emperor's junk is hanging out--Today, that is you.

Many Bloggers complain obliquely about the MSM here, but no one before this has had the guts to poke them in the eye. If your reportage of the election that has become a media beauty contest is not enough, readers can visit Omid Memarian's blog today, "Record-Breaking Administration: 935 False Statements in Two Years," and gain ample evidence of the corporate sellout of the people's interest.

But for a real life lesson in how difficult is is for most people to see beyond their own limited partisanship, visit one of the alternate universe blogger sites like, "Obama, Clinton Spar on War, Immigration" or "Campaigning Grows Furious As Tuesday Approaches." They're like private chat rooms with dueling multiple aliases. Raise the idea that the Media has controlled our electoral process. The response is immediate and deafening--We don't want to know about it! Shut up, go away, and let us continue our counter productive circle jerk of back biting and innuendo.

Close to 2300 posts on those sites, total, most of which are just partisan nonsense and personal attacks. I hope the day comes where we can see that level of response when issues that truly affect how this nation is run, are raised. When the discussion of Systemic fascism and how we might work to eliminate it are more important than appearing clever or gaining fans. Please keep raising this issue, and the problem of monopoly consolidation of the media as well. Even though many apparently aren't ready to hear it, the work needs to be done!

[taikan]

The key point of this post is that Clinton and Obama are the remaining two candidates not because of their qualifications or their positions on the issues, but because they raised lots of money early on and were successfully marketed as celebrities. Personally, I would rather have a President who has more experience and a better record of accomplishments than either Clinton or Obama, but the candidates with the best records in that regard (Richardson, Biden and Dodd) lost in the early primaries due to lack of funds and lack of celebrity status.
By allowing politics to become more about celebrity than it is about positions on issues and past experience that demonstrates one's judgment and ability to fill the many roles of an elected official, we have put ourselves in a position where we deserve the elected officials we get.

[jules233]

Someone told me that a while ago, Chris Matthews had the nerve (to me) to say that they (the media) were going to decide which candidates would be the front-runners not the public, and it seems as if that has happened. I agree with the proposal of a one day primary in every state, rather than this piece-meal mess we have. I also live in Pennsylvania, and by April 22, I'm sure our voting will be for nothing. It seems a shame and a crime that the voices of all candidates were not heard in equal measure, because some corporations decided it would be better political theater to have the race be between the first credible African-American and the first credible female candidates.

[Rescisco]

You've nailed it. Also, the media seems to recklessly support this nonsense. God forbid the "contest" goes past February 5th? In addition to the money, and the front loaded frontrunner skewed "system," the media spends ALL of its time trying to play an active role in "reducing" the field. One wonders if anyone really cares however. We just seem to take it, or perhaps we don't even notice it etc. Either way, its as much us as it is the media or "them."

[Deidroni]

I believe it's time to revamp the whole primary voting process in this country. We should vote on one day across the nation and then we will have a fair way to select our candidates.

I live in PA and we don't cast our ballots until April 22. It probably won't mean a thing.

[research]

The corporations have "allowed" Obama and Clinton to proceed because neither is threatening their profits. Since all Honest candidates have already been excluded, everything from now on will be game fluff to win the election.

Obama and Clinton, cannot propose eliminating the health insurance companies for fear of what all that health insurance money could do to them. That goes for any and all other, perceived anti-corporatist proposals.

For instance pot legalization. Or ending war as a continuing welfare system for the war profiteers.

Don't expect to get what you vote for.

I'm going to vote democratic and hope for the best.

[ljsfolly]

When will the campaigns be limited to public funds and not the money of those who will call later for favors?

[AnninCA]

There's obviously a lot in support of your observation. The money this year being spent is obscene in my opinion.

And the extravaganza approach is a bit distateful to me.

I do prefer Hillary Clinton and feel strongly, in opposition to your opinion, that she's proven in substantive ways that she is very ready for the job. And I much prefer her use of the "Town Hall" meeting that will air tonight on the Hallmark Channel as well as on-line at her own blog.

But it cost $500,000 to buy that spot.

And how many millions did Obama spend on his ads this past Sunday?

We sure could do a lot to help real people with that money, in my opinion.

[sofia]

My thoughts exactly! You are so right! My first choice was Dodd but Iowa gets to decide much more than the other 49 states. Why aren't people outraged by this and why are they buying all the hate fed to us by the MSM and some blogs on the internet? This is all about money and marketing.

[huffpostD46]

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sonofloud]

I couldn't agree more.
Maybe one day people will finally realize we do not live in a democracy and do something about it.

[ATLiberal]

What a shame. Yawn