Skip to main content

Why Are We Subsidizing the Party System?


As a former political science student and teacher, one thing that has ALWAYS bothered me about the electoral system in the United States: why does the public PAY for party primaries?

I can understand the states being responsible for running their general elections to provide opportunity for their citizens to choose mayors, governors and all the way up to president, but for the life of me- why does the public pay for party primaries?

FROM: http://www.coolinfographics.com/blog/2016/8/3/very-few-americans-nominated-trump-and-clinton.html
Look at that graphic above. You can see how it works here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0
Only 9% of the American public selected either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump via the party primary process!

So, 9 out of ten of us are paying for the privilege of the remaining less than ten percent to have a chance to participate in what are private organizations selecting their general election candidate.

Wow.

Do you know how much that cost? According to openprimaries.org, over $425 million dollars this past election cycle.

Now, granted, states do choose to hold elections in primary season for other reasons. Ballots can have voter referendum on bond issues or other state elections. But would they choose to if they didn't have to? In my state of North Carolina alone, it was $9,000,000. But the amount is really NOT the issue.

Based on Pew Center Research, "...based on 2014 data, [of American voters] 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. Most polls have the registrations as high as 45%. Meaning that a minority of the population is subsidizing the majority's ability to select.

I'm with this editorial columnist: make the parties pay for their own elections. 

Popular posts from this blog

Slow Death or Rebirth for Myspace?

  Are we really watching the slow inevitable death of Myspace? With the integration with Facebook complete and  the push towards what appears to be a mobile only function , isn't it time to call this one? One report says that Myspace is making $200 million less this year. They are functionally giving up on Myspace Music , which was always their bread and butter. Without the music tie in, why would people BOTHER with Myspace? I'm talking about it because my wife's band has used every medium known to mankind to promote themselves online and Myspace has been nothing but dead weight from the very beginning. Only bands and their most ardent fans go there. The rest are on Facebook.  There is talk of selling Myspace, but who in their right mind would consider it? This will have some interesting implications for bands down the road. Many use Myspace as their de facto website, just pushing their domain name onto the customizable site. Now apparently, Reverbnation , a North Carolin

Being a Parent

While back, I wrote a post on Father's day about being a father and how being a parent is a job. I wistfully look back as I look forward to another school year quickly approaching and the evidence of my "work" is becoming less and less my handiwork. Our youngest has just moved on to middle school. Josh has moved into high school and the oldest has graduated from high school and about "start" her life. We've had a tacit arrangement with the kids. We do NOT want boomerang kids coming back to haunt us. So they have always been told, they are staying with us until they are REALLY ready to go out and that includes the joke that college has become. Sadly, despite the fact that I have spent a good chunk of my career working in higher education, I know that it is a folly to think that sending a child off to college is preparing them for much other than to have a lifetime of loans. Thankfully, Amanda has gotten the message. She has a plan to go to local c

Check out my appearance on the The Toddcast Podcast

Click and watch the podcast recording of my appearance on the Toddcast Podcast  Such a fun time!