One Person, One Vote?

An editorial in the New York Times yesterday broached the issue of the need for change in the system for presidential primary elections in our country. Each party does it differently under their own guide lines, but as we saw with the primaries this year, and as the editorial points out, there are some problems with the two party’s systems. The editorial puts it this way, “A guiding principle behind American democracy is ‘one person, one vote.’ All voters should have an equal opportunity, regardless of who they are or where they live, to affect the outcome. The process should be transparent, the ballot should be secret, and there should be no unnecessary barriers to voting.” This is a principal that does seem to be threatened by the current primary systems and the editorial goes on to explain some of the ways that this principal is being affected.

One of the most apparent flaws with the idea of each person’s vote being equal is the use in the Democratic Party’s system of “super delegates.” The editorial makes a good point that having delegates that do not represent the voting members of the party and who have the power to potentially decide the outcome of the election does not fall in line with the idea of popular election. The case made by the article against the Republican system’s use of a winner take all method in many states and districts is somewhat contradictory though. If the idea is one person, one vote, then why is a majority winner of a popular vote not worthy of that areas delegates? Now the argument could be made about the presidents who have taken office via the Electoral College but without the popular majority. However, if the Electoral College or the delegate system in the primaries were to be abolished, than the presidents would be elected by city dwellers in the largest of our nation’s cities and many people would completely lose their stake in the decision.

The Senate rules committee is apparently going to be taking these things into consideration very soon but the author of this editorial laments rightly that “insiders do not always have the interests of ordinary voters at heart.” Could all of these problems be rooted deeper than just the wrong set of rules for party elections? When designing our system the founding fathers created a republic with safe guards against a simple majority rule democracy. Apparent in their fear of ruling factions it would seem as though they never intended there to be political parties in the first place. As the editorial points out in its closing, “Whoever takes action, the goal should be a new and improved nominating process that reflects the will of the people.” But perhaps party nominated candidates are not the best way to “reflect the will of the people” after all. Definitely something to think about!