Primary Pathos... just about done

1) I respond to this point in the most creative way possible: by using a Public Enemy song AND a Spiderman quote. Think it can't be done? Watch this:

If: power to the people
And: with great power comes great responsibility
Then: the people have responsibility

Ok, I'll add one thing. Yes, you personally may not be responsible for a decision that your representative might make, because hell, you're just one person, and while that letter you wrote might be strongly worded, it probably won't make it past the representative's Legislative Correspondent. But I still maintain that the people in aggregate assume responsibility for the actions of the politicians. In fact, not holding them responsible would seem weird. Do you really believe that Americans hold no responsibility for anything that our government does? Vietnam wasn't our fault, it was the Johnson's fault. The Iraq war wasn't our fault, it was Bush's fault. Tax cuts for the rich wasn't our fault, it was the GOP Congress's fault. Nothing is our fault!

Personally, I find that buck-passing to be disturbing. We the people, through the democratic mechanism of voting, have the power to make sure that our representatives actually represent us. If we fail in adequately exercising that power, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

2) Ok, that's just glib. I said "Wikipedia, et al", meaning that if I really wanted to look, I'm sure I could find a source or two that says that America practices a form of democracy. I mean, do you really doubt that we live in a democracy? If so, then join company with about a handful of political philosophy professors, but the rest of us are gonna go on living in what we call a democracy. Seriously, pointing out that we don't actually live in a democracy is like correcting someone when they incorrectly use the term "centrifugal force" - even if the correction is true, what's the point?

3) That is true, caucuses are confusing and overwhelming to a lot of people. I should know, I attended one in Iowa this year. But I also found that people tend to be much more informed. Part of that may be a selection bias; that is, caucuses attract only the most well-informed and engaged voters. But I think there's a reverse causation as well: caucuses make voters more informed than they otherwise would be. First off, unlike a primary, a caucus is a communal event, which of course comes with its own share of community pressures. Voters feel a need to be more informed because they will be expressing their political views in front of their neighbors, and so they want to be able to back them up. Second, the caucus isn't just where people vote - actual voter education goes on there as well. Neighbors talking to neighbors about who's better on the environment, who voted for the Iraq War, etc. And after the vote, members of the community were elected to act as delegates in the county convention. You don't get that kind of political participation in a primary.

I'm not saying that caucuses are better than primaries. But what they lose on turnout, I think they gain by bringing citizens to a higher level of political participation. Furthermore, I don't think that we should be answering these normative questions for the rest of the country. Both voting system has its benefits and drawbacks, and it's up to the states to decide which trade-offs they want to make.

You also said that we can't change the rules now. But using the popular vote as a measure would do just that! It is an unfair measure that is biased towards certain states and away from others. How can you say that we can't change the rules now, but then in the next sentence argue that we should use the popular vote to judge the winner of the primary?

By the way, I hope you're enjoying this as much as I am. Why no one else is chomping at the bit to jump into our little debate is beyond me.