By Joe Carbonari
Talk politics. Yes, arguments may ensue. The risk, though, is worth it. Our primary elections are less than eight weeks away. Unfortunately, many voters really don’t have a clue.
Friends and family are fair game. Help them understand. If they remain confused, just tell them how you think they should vote … in a quiet, understanding way.
Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Bernie Sanders are all risky, but to different degrees and in different ways. Trump is portraying himself as a buffoonish egotist who is high on testosterone. He entertains in a nasty way. He is woefully unsuited for the job. His supporters should know that this impression is held widely in the world of those that should know and care. He is not acceptable by his performance or as an example.
Ted Cruz is also bad. He is a scammer of true-believers and their tendency to ask too little and trust too much. He has not been a nice player in the Senate sandbox. Nor has he been effective. Still, he is less risky than Trump. He knows the game.
Bernie is safer still. I respect Vermonters. They are not easily fooled or frivolous. They respect and trust him. Some fear that he will shift emphasis towards the middle class too rapidly and derail our economy. I think possible, but not likely.
By Tim Baldwin
People have mixed views about state primary elections for president. Since our constitutions do not govern this election, states have developed their own procedures, which have mostly favored the major political parties and are indirect elections, whereby delegates are sent to a convention to elect the candidates for the parties. Good or bad?
Political parties are perhaps necessary and arise from human nature but have inherent dangers to a democratic society. Parties, in some respects, have more power than the people at large, and when a few delegates vote for the candidates, the parties’ influence over the election is compounded.
Once elected by delegates, the people are essentially pigeon-holed into voting for one of two candidates in the general election, regardless of the people’s preferment. Add to this, incumbents typically face no opposition of the party because the chances of winning increase exponentially. This further entrenches the parties’ power over the people’s will.
Thus, primary election reform has been underway for years. Its advocates argue that primary elections should be determined by the voters, not delegates, because it better reflects societies’ ideas, incentivizes parties to adjust their priorities, and encourages mass voter participation.
The results of this reform, however, are unknown because they are largely untested. Regardless, if politics is an ongoing experiment (and it is), Americans should test different approaches given the obvious displeasure most have with our current political state.