Why the Super Tuesday Tie is Good for Democracy

So most of last night, as I watched the returns, I couldn't shake the feeling that I wanted my guy to just flat-out win, even though I knew there was something wrong with that. It took me till this morning to figure it out. (What can I say? I was an academic long before I became a blogger, and academics need to chew things over.) Here's what's wrong with the desire most of us share for the definitive victory, the knockout punch, as it were.

1. We're smack dab in the middle of the most democratic primary campaign in a generation. That's "small-d" democratic, as in the practice of democracy. Instead of the big money and party brokers having locked up the nominations early on both sides, in this season the voters--remember them?--turn out to be key. Turnout is way, way up, breaking records in some states. That means the electorate is expanding--which is healthy for our political system.

The fact that Super Tuesday didn't wrap up the nomination for anyone keeps folks interested in the campaign, and more likely to vote in the general election. Now the upcoming primaries actually matter, so my family in Virginia are now much more likely to go to the polls next Tuesday. If either candidate had cleaned up, I think most of them would have stayed home. Who likes voting for a done deal, on either side?

2. I realized yesterday just how much I love proportional representation. It's the "winner-take-all" of Electoral College politics that has warped our feelings about presidential campaigns, especially in states that appear to be a lock one way or another. I live in New York State, which most folks figured Hillary Clinton would win big (she is our Senator, after all)--and she did, by 17 points. But my vote for Obama wasn't wasted at all--it helped get him delegates that he'll take to the convention. Similarly, the Clinton votes in Connecticut or Illinois aren't wasted either. That's what democracy ought to look like.

3. Winner take all is a version of the knockout punch--whereas proportional representation is not only more democratic; it also keeps those who "lost" in the conversation. I'm delighted that my Democratic friends who "won" in Massachusetts and New York and "lost" in Connecticut are still engaged in the process, considering whether to give money to their favorites, following the numbers, arguing about what it all means, and able to be proud that their votes counted.

4. This is why politics is different from sports. In sports, a tie is almost always bad--it's messy, inconclusive, and unsatisfying. In politics, Super Tuesday's tie is good for democracy.

Comments

[RichLiberal]

Electoral college is a mixed bag. Its main purpose is to maintain proportional representation among states. i.e. if you have a lot of close races in a whole bunch of states, then one isolated state with a huge disproportion cannot wipe out the balance of the other states. i.e. it confines the impact one state can have on the national election to the proportional size of that one state.

The question of winner take all is also subtle. The Republicans have cynically tried to make California proportional within the state so its votes could be split to the advantage of the Republicans since the Democrats are likely to win it. So, clearly, it has to be all the states or none in that regard. i.e. all the states have to use the same system.

If all the states went proportional then it would be like having the House of Representatives voting to decide the winner. The question would then be how are the individual electors bound to vote. i.e. are they committed based on the Congressional district results or what?

Bottom line, imo, leave it alone unless there is an easy to understand alternative. I am opposed to just one lump national vote, because we are a collection of states, which has done well by us as a nation, and we should not do anything that would allow one or a few states to play games that would disrupt the balance.

[CanSoc]

Since Prof. Goldstein prefers proportional representation so much in primaries for allocating delegates to candidates, would he also prefer it in elections for allocating seats to parties? Most countries in the world do.

[thedirtman]

A long fight on the convention floor will be the only way Dems begin to air out their differences. Don't count on MSM help. The longer the fight the more we will come to understand one another, and the more ready we will be to lead once the administration takes command. Who wins is secondary.

[starboymikey]

The only really democratic way to hold an election is to totally get of delegates in primaries and the electoral college in general presidential elections.

Democracy, and I mean real democracy, demands that every vote of every individual count equally.

As many have said, we need a single initial nationial primary. Every candidate gets an equal chance, and the two from each party with the most votes can have a runoff a couple of weeks later.

The general election should then be decided by popular vote alone.

[radicalcentrist44]

What happens to the Florida and Michigan delegates if this continues to be a close race? I cannot believe that the DNC "leadership" decided to piss off two huge states.

[January]

Representative government does not mean that anyone and everyone gets to decide. All we get is a say in the decision--as in "No taxation without representation."

Do we all have equal say? Not in a nation where money talks and BS walks. Is it time to do something about the "best politicians money can buy"? Long past time. But if you think that 550+ representatives can made good decisions for 200M+ people without hearing from those whose self-interest is at stake, you live in a dream world.

Participation does not guarantee we get what we want nor even what we need. Only that we get a say. (Like here on this blog.)

[MinuteMan]

It's amazing how the OM fails to grasp (or choose not to) the whole proportional allocation process. They insist on calling states for one Dem or another. If the vote is within a few percentage points it's basically a tie.

It makes some sense in GOP primaries but they don't stop to point out that the "winner" got less than 40% and only beat his nearest rival by a small margin.

As long as Obama and Clinton don't self-destruct a long campaign is probably healthy for the Democrats. The GOP doesn't know who to attack, but both Obama and Clinton can unload on McCain. The only other way for a long campaign to turn out bad is if it gets too close and petty technicalities end up tainting the nomination process (i.e., something similar to all the irregularities and fights in the '00 Florida election).

[jstock]

I have to agree that the way in which the delegates are apportioned is CLOSER to being FAIR, although I think simply giving each candidate the PERCENTAGE of his/her vote total for each of the states might even be better. Still, I kind of like the way it's being done, certainly MUCH better than winner take all. As for Kucinich/P­aul/Edward­s fans, I agree that the media act as the unofficial gate-keepers. They decide who has the mark of the Beast and who doesn't. However, to be fair, how many of you Edwards fans voted for, or donated to, Edwards when you had your chance? Ultimately, we the people (more or less) decide who wins. I'm loving this election stuff; it's like the playoffs, only with more lasting results. Please vote - even if your first or second choice didn't make it. We need to take back our beloved country from the right wing monsters who have shredded our Constitution and sullied our international reputation.

[Warren Goldstein - Huffpost Blogger]

Look, friends, what I said is that this was the "most democratic primary campaign in a generation." I'll be more specific--since the McGovern rules were undone in the seventies. Of course it's not a purely democratic process.

And superdelegates are a big reason why the process is less democratic than it should be. They're a way to reward party bosses and regulars and blunt democratic insurgencies--just as the founders put the Senate and the Electoral College were into the Constitution as checks on any massive democratic upsurges in the early American Republic.

American democracy has always been partial. Unless we amend the Constitution substantially, and I fear for the good stuff--like the Bill of Rights--if we open it up now, it's always going to be partial. Not either/or.

Sure, it was really dumb--and undemocratic--to disfranchise Florida, and tick off loyal Democrats who may not vote in the general election, and have been disfranchised by their own party.

And big corporate money is still too powerful in limiting the policy proposals of Obama and Clinton. Single payer health care ought to be a no-brainer. Taxes on the wealthy need to go way up. Nuclear power ought to be unplugged now and forevermore.

That said, the campaign is still expanding the electorate, which means bringing in new voters, motivating young folks and people of color, and when that kind of stuff happens, the party regulars can no longer count on being able to control the outcome.

[research]

This is the LEAST DEMOCRATIC primary I have ever seen! What were you watching?

Kucinich was forbidden by the GE war profiteers from debating even before ANY of the primaries had taken place.

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.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

What we're seeing isn't democracy, which is why after the primaries I'm switching from Democrat back to Independent.

This party is an embarrassment.

First, the banning of the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Why? The candidates should have been allowed to campaign there and the votes should have counted. Now Hillary might try to pull a Bush and steal an election. The Democratic Party should have just allowed Michigan and Florida to count, like the Republicans did.

Second, the super delegates. After the people's choice McGovern lost badly in 1972, the Democratic Party wanted a back-up plan. If those crazy libs chose someone unacceptable again, the super delegates could choose a safer (i.e. more conservative) candidate. And so, this year, Hillary might end up cutting deals with elected officials and ex-elected officials, and undercutting the democratic process.

Furthermore, quite simply, the super delegate count makes me dizzy.

Third, early voting. Why have California play a major role in deciding the nominee and then nullify that role by having voters vote before the candidates even have time or money to campaign there? "Bill Clinton's running again-- cool I'll vote for him!" "Obama? What's an Obama?"

As a liberal who will never have my kind of president in the White House, I really need to stop investing so much emotion in these things. (By the way, Howard Dean looked great on TV yesterday-- thanks Democrats.)

[Wiredwilly]

This fiasco is as good for Democracy as Hitler was for the Jews.
People are so thick headed it's mind-numbing :
THE VOTING MACHINES ARE RIGGED and if not, PROVE IT. You can't .
Votes are counted behind closed electronic doors & the doors are locked.
Congress has had 4 years to affix paper trails and have done nothing.
THE DEBATES ARE RIGGED. The Corporate moderates are given 10 times as much air time as the populist Progressives. Kucinich was strong-armed out & Ron Paul's name & numbers aren't even included on the screen. THE SELECTION PROCESS IS RIGGED. If you lived in Colorado, California, or Wisconsin and you wanted to Vote for Edwards or Kucinich, tough luck. They were weeded out before the general election. THE FUNDING IS RIGGED . If you're not a millionaire don't bother. Rather than a Publicly Funded process, Democratically open to all, we create a system open only to the wealthy & let everyone else wave posters. American Idol has a more Democratic process of choosing a winner. People seem content to accept this madness as something viable, just as they accepted the phony election of Bush. I'm not.
2 + 2 is not 5.

[research]

Bull!

Kucinich was forbidden by the GE war profiteers from debating even before ANY of the primaries had taken place.

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.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

yes, I believe that proprtional delegates are good in theory. But, when you listen to the calulations in a place like CA, it somehow doesn't make sense in many of the delegate districts. In those with an even number of delegates (say 4), unless one candidate gets 66% or more of the vote, the delegates are split evenly 2-2. In districts with an odd number of delegates (say 5), a candidate wins by one vote and get the extra delegate 3-2. IT just somehow doesn't seem right.

[Democrab]

It wasn't a tie.