Hyperdemocracy and it's Discontents

David Broder's WaPo column today describes the Democrats latest scheme to alter the 2008 selection process by adding Nevada and South Carolina to the crush of primaries and caucuses that will occur within a short cycle at the beginning of the election year.

All this effort to force-feed four contests in four different parts of the country into a two-week period at the start of the year is designed, the sponsors say, to make the presidential nominating process more "representative."

What they mean is that Iowa and New Hampshire, which have led the nominating process since 1976, are overwhelmingly white -- and notably short of the African American and Latino voters on whom Democrats depend in the general election.

The problem here is that we can expect to witness a process that is so front-loaded that the candidates will be decided very rapidly in a flurry of activity in 2007 and 2008. Democrats in other parts of the country, regardless of color, sexual orientation, or Union membership, will be forced to add their stamp of approval - a mere formality by that point. Instead of a field of candidates that is gradually winnowed down over time as states add their imprint, we've got a mad rush to appeal to select constituencies - groups which don't even meet the ever-shifting standard of "diversity" since large swaths of the country and other special interests won't be "granted a voice".

Broder observes:

What was lost in all this was any sense of public deliberation about the choice of the next president. In the general election, people have two months or more to evaluate two or maybe three candidates. In the early primaries, eight or 10 people may be vying. What is most needed is time -- and a place -- for them to be carefully examined.

He almost sounds like a misty-eyed conservative, pining for the less frenetic pace of yesteryear.

Technology and mass customization have lulled many people into the false expectation that something like direct democracy can be achieved, that all "voices can be heard". This has never been the case, wasn't baked into the Constitution, and has always been problematic in terms of the formal nominating process. You get to vote, but you are always depending on your fellow citizens, who have frequently constrained your choices - whether you like it or not. From straw polls to the arcane rules that govern caucuses - American democracy is weird, selective, and imperfect.

(Takes me back to my first very first post.)

Tags: Elections, Presidential Nomination, David Broder