Spring Break
OP-ED: Our primary system disenfranchises and violates our rights
by Alex Green
Op-Ed | 3/18/08
Posted online at 2:02 AM EST on 3/18/08
The other night, my first roommate from Brandeis and I were talking on the phone. We were excited, as we often have been over the last eight months, about the latest developments in the Democratic primaries.
In Florida and Michigan, both parties had been stripped of delegates for violating the primary schedule to supersede elections in other states. Republicans had lost half of their delegates, while Democrats had lost them all. The news that day was that a compromise was being reached to grant a vote to the Democrats of Florida and Michigan.
There are a number of important issues raised by Florida and Michigan's maneuvering over the last few years. The Democratic National Committee expressed a justifiable concern that the perpetual repositioning of presidential primaries was leading to a state of perennial electoral politics rather than solid governance. Yet the concerns I expressed to my friend have less to do with the timing of primaries than with their meaning within our constitutional framework.
The brokered compromise being reached would require Florida's Democratic party to provide over 6 million dollars for a mail-in primary.
The national party cannot sufficiently fund a state election without hurting its prospects in the national elections.
As I explained to my roommate, however, the whole issue holds tremendous implications that extend far beyond the candidacies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and their chances in November. My fundamental concern is that primaries are inherently unconstitutional.
The United States Constitution makes no mention of political parties, and there is no substantive Constitutional mandate or framework for their existence. Federal financing for primary elections is, in actuality, financing for private corporations that function as power brokers between the general electorate and the federal government.
In Florida's case, the request that the state party raise millions of dollars for a vote is a second area of serious concern. The implicit message of this punitive deal is that the voters must buy their right to vote because of the actions of their corporate party representatives.
In Florida and Michigan, both parties had been stripped of delegates for violating the primary schedule to supersede elections in other states. Republicans had lost half of their delegates, while Democrats had lost them all. The news that day was that a compromise was being reached to grant a vote to the Democrats of Florida and Michigan.
There are a number of important issues raised by Florida and Michigan's maneuvering over the last few years. The Democratic National Committee expressed a justifiable concern that the perpetual repositioning of presidential primaries was leading to a state of perennial electoral politics rather than solid governance. Yet the concerns I expressed to my friend have less to do with the timing of primaries than with their meaning within our constitutional framework.
The brokered compromise being reached would require Florida's Democratic party to provide over 6 million dollars for a mail-in primary.
The national party cannot sufficiently fund a state election without hurting its prospects in the national elections.
As I explained to my roommate, however, the whole issue holds tremendous implications that extend far beyond the candidacies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and their chances in November. My fundamental concern is that primaries are inherently unconstitutional.
The United States Constitution makes no mention of political parties, and there is no substantive Constitutional mandate or framework for their existence. Federal financing for primary elections is, in actuality, financing for private corporations that function as power brokers between the general electorate and the federal government.
In Florida's case, the request that the state party raise millions of dollars for a vote is a second area of serious concern. The implicit message of this punitive deal is that the voters must buy their right to vote because of the actions of their corporate party representatives.
Be the first to comment on this story