The Democratic Party is really not very Democratic

The Democratic Party is really not very Democratic

Hey!  All you Democrats out there! The Democratic Party is really not very Democratic. Consider first the “Superdelegates.”  Not only does the Democratic electorate have no say in who they are but it has no say even about how many “Superdelegates” are designated by the Democratic National Committee,. Not only is the voting process at the Democratic National Convention weighted by the so called "Superdelegates," but the Democratic National Committee is itself weighted by the inclusion of elected government officials and party functionaries.  The executive committee of the party is even more so. You have to check the bylaws for the prescribed composition.

Anyway, Article Two, Section 4 of the Charter describes the procedures by which ‘ordinary’ delegates are chosen, and subsection (e) seems to exclude the creation of a significant block of delegates who were selected without the “participation in good faith of all voters…”  BUT:  Article Two, Section 5 throws democratic processes out the window.  While the number of elected delegates is limited by the charter, the number of delegates which can be ‘designated’ by the Committee is not.  Basically, Section 5 allows the appointment of any number of delegates by the Democratic National Committee, and if there are a mere 700 or so of them, it is because the National Committee has exercised some restraint.  That is by my reading.  For your convenience, I provide Section 5, so you may interpret, and decide, for your self.

_____________________________________

THE CHARTER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES

ARTICLE TWO, SECTION 5: The delegate vote allocable to each state shall be determined as provided in the Bylaws, consistent with the formula:

a. giving equal weight to population, which may be measured by electoral vote, and to the Democratic vote in elections for office of the President; and

b. giving such additional delegate votes as may be specifically designated by the Democratic National Committee in the Call to the Convention, subject to such conditions as may be set forth by the Democratic National Committee in said Call, for the purpose of providing incentives for scheduling the event constituting the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process in each state later in the year of the Convention than such event would otherwise be scheduled in the absence of such incentive; and

c. which shall also provide additional delegate positions to members of the Democratic National Committee; and

d. which may also provide additional delegate positions to Democratic elected public officials specifically designated by the Democratic National Committee in the Call to the Convention, subject to the provisions of Section 4.

______________________________________

Subsection a: is the sop to democratic process. The rest of the Article is the work around. The Charter and Bylaws of the Democratic Party and The Rules of the Republican Party, can be Googled, and any participant in our political processes should.

In a way, it is not in the interests for those members who are elected or appointed government officials for the Democratic party to actually be successful.  The greater the success of the Democratic party, the greater the competition for positions on the National and Executive committees.  

For comparison, I have also checked out  The Rules of the Republican Party.  The Republican document seems to be more procedural, and the Democratic Charter more purpose driven.   The irony is that, (At least as far as I can tell.  The comparison is not easy.  Both documents seem to me to be unnecessarily obscure.) under their Rules Republicans are more democratically represented by their party officers than the Democrats under The Charter are by theirs.  The Democratic Party structure is rigged in a way which caters to the establishment and is contrary to democratic principles.  The Republican Party structure under its rules, anyway, is not.

The Democratic Charter seems to go back to 1972.  (This is from the revision of 2012.) So there has been plenty of time for the appropriate people to notice this and bring it to the attention of the party membership.  

A note of small humorousness:  The Republicans have no mention of God in their preamble, nor of the Constitution.  The Democrats mention both.

One other important question:  Why is the government at all involved in the primaries?  No one is elected to any government office, so why is it the government that is concerned with fairness or procedure.  It is the concern of each of the various parties, to assure fairness, in their election.   (Or not.  The officers of the party may believe that an unfair nominating process will not compromise, and may enhance, the electability of their party's candidates in the general election.)  The members of the various parties elect candidates they hope are both electable, and perhaps equally important, represent the interests and desires of a majority of that party's members.

 

As things stand, one party must overcome the opposition of the other party to follow the procedures it considers favorable to itself, and the other party must follow the procedures laid down by the opposition party, whether or not those are the procedures desired by its electorate.  

These interests of the party electorate are not necessarily the same as the interests of the government, in particular the interests of the establishment politicians of the various states.  Where they diverge, the government may be expected to interfere and impose conditions which harm the interests of the electorate.  Where the government imposes procedures, the government must be expected to impose procedures which distort the primary process to favor its interests, rather than the party's.  Granted, the party’s interests are not necessarily coherent.  The party elite’s interests are not necessarily the interests of the party voters or the rank and file, as they may expected to align more with the government’s interests.  Indeed, since one or another party is the government  only if the government is disinterestedly and competently serving what the voters desire.  Simply, it is the job of each party to run their own elections.  It is not the government's job.

In fact, it is in the interests of each party to establish those rules and procedures which that party considers the best able to attain the goal of nominating the candidates who best most likely to win in the general election, while taking those positions the majority of the voters of that party desire.  Failure to do so would disadvantage not only the particular party in the general election, but compromise the ability of the government to  properly respond to the needs and desires of their electorate.   It would thus  compromise their ability to govern.  Democracy is the best system while it is the most responsive to the electorate.  When it fails to do this, when it corrupts the process or violates the principles of impartial access to information by the electorate, it is no longer.  

Now, as it is, the government does subsidize the primaries by providing and servicing the polling places and vote counting and so forth.  But as we have seen in places like Arizona, the government need not always provide these services fairly and in the desired quantity.   So the government could provide the necessary services while allowing the various parties to form and follow their own policies and procedures.   Provisions could be made to accommodate the minor parties.  

What is your citizenship worth?

What is your citizenship worth? A monetary value can be put on it. Is it still positive? Is it still worth something positive? Or has it become a burden? It is supposed to be a blessing.

Consider the negative value added to it by the national debt. At about $10Trillion or so, or about $33,000 for every man, woman and child, about $60,000 for every worker. And climbing. Taxes also take away from the value of citizenship, but with taxes, we buy things, and the value of these things adds to the value of citizenship. So add to that the benefits provided by society. Schools, highways, rule of law, etc. What should be a very significant net positive. Hard to put exact figures on them. Perhaps willingness to pay. Plus a premium. When you think about it, schools, law enforcenment, and many other public goods supported by our taxes, really are a bargain.

But in any case, citizenship is worth less than it was before, for most of us:

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_impunity_of_the_roberts_court

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=signing_away_our_rights

But not for some:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/04/wachovia-paid-trivial-fine-for-nearly-400-billion-of-drug-related-money-laundering.html

Not exactly the 'shining city on a hill' mentioned by Ronald Reagan. Not exactly an example for others to follow, either. With increasing debt, budget cuts to education and so forth, loss of rights in the workplace, etc, the value of citizenship seems to be decreasing. What will happen if, or when, the value turns negative, the bribes for obedience are no longer enough, and propaganda can no longer hide the fact that citizenship in the United States has, for many, becomes an increasingly onerous burden? Will they sell their citizenship to the highest bidder, by which I mean the rights citizenship confers? Piecemeal, perhaps? Or will the people organize, and reestablish a new citizenship, under new terms?

On Rights

These truths are self-evident:

All rights are the creation of men. It is the desire of men to have rights, which creates rights. Rights derive from the relations between men, and the resources available to men. Men give rights, so that they may have them. They are property, which each man possesses to one degree or another. Rights have value. The value of a right is not its formality, but its effect. Each man values each right, to one degree or another, according to its effect on his life.

All rights are by the consent of others. Since the consent of others is always contingent, no right can be absolute or inalienable.

Each society has available to it, even where it extracts rights from other societies, only so many rights to distribute among its members. A society with more resources has the potential for more rights. It may have less.

Each right that a person has is a limitation on the rights of others. Each right is a burden on others.

Rights incur responsibilities. The failure to meet those responsibilities is a cause tor the alienation of those rights. The first responsibility is the granting of rights to others. The second responsibility is their enforcement. The third responsibility is mercy. Since the responsibility of rights represents a burden, the fourth responsibility is the minimization of that burden, given the maximization of those rights, given the resources available. The fifth responsibility is the education to those rights, and their responsibilities, and their burden.

The people of a society grant rights for their own benefit. Rights are granted where the effective benefit of those rights is greater than the real burden of the responsibilities. Where the people benefit less than the burden, those rights will be discarded.

The people of a society develop institutions for securing their rights. These institutions formalize the granting of rights, and their enforcement. These institutions are themselves granted rights, to the benefit of and at the expense of the people. Such institutions necessarily also increase the rights of a few. To such degree as they use force, or are inefficient, they reduce the rights available to the people and increase the burden of those rights.

In a society, there is a natural distribution of rights, which depends on the resources available to that society, demanding the least force and incurring the least inefficiency, which maximizes the value of rights available to the people. The institutions chosen by the people need not guarantee that distribution, and indeed may be chosen to impose distributions of rights different from this natural distribution. The additional expense, the loss of rights to a society, will be more than proportional to the deviation from the natural distribution.

So by consent, the members of a society may make certain rights universal, and held in equal quantity by all, and inalienable except for failure to meet the incurred responsibilities. These certain rights then represent a form of property which cannot be bought or sold. A society may consent to this, at the expense of other rights, that the few more fortunate of more able, shall not otherwise acquire those certain rights of the many less fortunate or less able.

And by consent a society may make certain rights held by a few, who incur greater responsibilities. It may assign these rights, and those responsibilities, to the few, in
various manners. These certain rights then represent a form of property, which may also be bought and sold. A society may consent to this, at the expense of other rights, if the many choose to not effectively exercise themselves those responsibilities these rights incur.

Properties are rights, and by the consent of others. Therefore, no property is absolute or inalienable. Others consent to properties, so that they may also have properties. Those who consent to have less, do so in the expectation that they may attain more, either in the present, or in the future. Since properties are rights, those with more properties have more rights than those who have fewer. Those with more properties also impose greater burdens on their society, and incur greater responsibilities. Since there is a natural distribution, those with more properties may impose a disproportionately large burden of their society, and incur disproportionately greater responsibilities.

There will always be those with many rights. There will always be those with few. When those with few are many, and those with many few, a society is poor.

Where many rights are narrowly held, where the many have few, either the few exercise their responsibilities, and impose the lesser burden on society, or they impose the greater burden of society, and the consent of the many is obtained and maintained through fraud and excess force. The many may either shake off their burden, or succumb to it. The resources taken to enforce fraud and excess force take away from the rights available to society.

That distribution of rights which maximizes the value of rights, and minimizes fraud and force, is most just, and most merciful.

Subject to revision.