Your Vote Should Be For The Party.
I argue that when you vote, your vote should be for the Party. I do not buy the concept “I vote for the candidate, not the Party”. Sorry, but it is not unsophisticated or unthinking to vote a straight ticket in the case of partisan elections. Yes, I know. In Delaware we don’t have straight ticket voting, but you can vote for all Democrats on November 4, and I plan on doing so.
Candidates align with Parties. They use their brand. They use their structures, money, staffs and volunteers. It is a conscious decision on their Party choice. This means they sign onto the Party platform and align with most if not all of the stands the Party takes in its platform, written by activists and Party regulars who craft the positions on issues, debate them and vote them for adoption in convention.
Parties are a great hallmark of democracy. They are built by people banding together with common views on public/civic issues. They were intended as a vehicle to get those views adopted by a majority and select candidates that well represent those views.
And their proper role is to hold those candidates accountable for support for those positions on issues, including discipline when they stray and rejection when they sell out. Much of this leverage is overlooked by local and national Party organizations, which is to overlook a major component of a functioning democracy.
If a Democratic Party loyalist has an objection to a candidate based on a visible flaw in their view, they can leave their vote blank on that candidate. To vote for another Party’s candidate in that office is to vote for the positions and stands of that Party, not their own Party. That is a betrayal.
Groups, especially Party loyalists, can and should have sway on the votes and policies created by candidates who succeed in becoming office holders. Free lancing candidates have no accountability to those who “brought them to the table”. They are renegades. Rogues. They represent an arrogance that has no place in a democracy and are more suited for an aristocracy.
Any Democrat thinking of supporting a Republican on November had better take a hard look at the Delaware Republican Party web site, which links directly to the Republican National Committee platform. Apparently they are too lazy locally to write their own platform and have bought lock stock and barrel into the RNC’s Tea Party world view.
Let me select a number of the RNC/Tea Party platform positions which most dramatically contrast with the Delaware Democratic Party and Democratic National Committee positions on issues. The DDP went to the trouble of writing a platform. I’d suggest you read it and the DNC document as well.
The Republicans want to extend the Bush tax cuts while lowering corporate taxes. This means middle classers pay the tax freight, if that isn’t obvious; but they want to keep this simple, so they want a flat tax. Ultimately though, their platform wants to repeal Federal Income tax altogether.
They want to reduce and privatize Medicare and Medicaid and repeal Obamacare, replacing them with private insurance operating in a free market. You know, like the good old days when, without insurance, sick people paid their doctors with things like eggs and chickens.
Speaking of free markets, they want to free workers of the burden of collective bargaining and unions. Way too complicated, especially for employers who surely would do the right thing and pay a decent wage. Oh, and they advocate flexibility in workplace conditions, which means deregulating workplace safety and conditions, hours and benefits.
Regulations? Forget them. They impede the free market and set industry free to prosper and grow. And free trade, not fair trade is their way to go, whenever and wherever industry chooses.
On the environment, coal good; EPA bad. No mention of the bogus science of climate change and global warming. Why? Because this is a Judeo-Christian nation and as you know, God provides for our kind. Especially if we display the ten commandments in our public squares. And for good measure, it is our God given right to drill baby drill. And of course because God made us the stewards of the world, private, not public stewardship of our lands and waterways.
Education. We’re doing just great at the state level with our public schools. Charters and vouchers are good. The Federal Department of Education are bad. Home schooling even better. Federal help with student loans are bad, except for the guarantee part, backing up the private banks who want no risk of default.
After school, jail’s good. Mandatory sentences really good for those who don’t cut it in school. And no parole for the “dangerous”. Death penalty for the most dangerous.
Sex. Abstinence is really good. Sex education, not good. Condoms, not so good. Abortion no good. Childbirth great, especially in the case of rape and incest. Those women’s clinics didn’t meet Republican clinical standards anyway. Federal Stem Cell research, no because they come from “aborted fetuses”.
And once those unwanted children are born, no food stamps for them or mom unless they are done only by block grants. And mom is going to have to work, work really really hard for very temporary help with household expenses.
Families? Only male female unions, thank you. You know, because it’s been traditional for thousands of years. Were there Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve in the garden, things might be different. But there weren’t. And homes for families? Sure. But only if financed by private banks, unencumbered by pesky, nuisance lending regulations.
And for protection from marauding poor people, guns are really good. Especially with open-carry. Registration? Hell no, especially at gun shows. Data collection on firearm sales, especially in border areas? A huge infringement of liberty.
Immigration. For sure, no federal funds for college education of illegals. But plenty of federal funds for those patriot illegals joining our military to get their heads blown off instead of “our kind”.
And speaking of the military. You Democrats keep your grimy hands off our Pentagon budget. Why? “Peace through strength”. They actually cite American Exceptionalism as given to us through “divine providence”.
Yes, Republicans, God is on your side. But I’m not and no thinking Democrat should be, by voting for your candidates.
Tags: Featured
These are great valid points … if your choice is between a Democrat and a GOP Teabagger.
But you’re preaching to the wrong crowd. I submit that most readers of this blog have no problem choosing the D over the Teabagger, but there is no GOP candidate in Delaware who poses a serious threat to a Democrat running for statewide office. (Barney and Mayrack, you say. Well, maybe, but you can’t show me how having D’s in the offices of Treasurer and Auditor would have an impact on the parties’ broader agendas. But I digress …)
The real issue for most DL readers is that the candidates at the top of the D’s ticket are edging closer to the GOP line on many issues (maybe not the ones you mention, but certainly on taxation, finance, banking, Social Security, and some national defense and civil liberties issues). These candidates are hardly likely to lose, but they do need to be reminded that we don’t like them drifting rightward. A vote for the Green candidates may be the best way to nudge them back toward where we want them to be.
Mr Merriman wrote:
Betrayal? Somehow, I’d guess that if a Republican had voted for President Obama — and a few did — you wouldn’t call that a betrayal, but doing the right thing.
OK, I’m pretty much of a Republican Party loyalist, but in 1989, I voted for Doug Wilder, the Democrat, for Governor in Virginia, primarily because I saw Marshall Coleman, the Republican nominee, as the personification of the sphincter. Was I somehow disloyal, somehow treasonous, for preferring to see an honest Democrat — Virginia used to have those — rather than someone like Mr Coleman in office?
And it turned out to be a reasonable vote: in a time of tight state revenues, Governor Wilder managed to balance the state budget without raising taxes, just as he promised he’d do. He governed as a moderate Democrat, and I had no real objections to him.
PP: Does voting for the Party mean that, in a state where our Party is dominated by DINO’s, we should vote for D’s who prevent progressive principles from ever being considered?
I agree that voting for noxious R’s is not an option, but how do you advance progressive principles if Tom Carper and his, wait for it, ilk effectively limit the choices we have? I think that Carper, et al, must be challenged, and that the Party should be forced, if necessary, to have Democrats from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party run for office. Right now, we’re lucky if we have a seat at the table. And it’s our fault. Because I think, in part, we buy into the meme that you’ve laid out.
Love this. It’s how stellar politicians like Chip and KWS get elected. Or how about Atkins, a D, because the R’s expelled him. More Kool Aid anyone?
This post pissed me off. As I assume it was supposed to.
My short answer is: Really? What about Karen Weldin Stewart?
My longer answer:
As a public servant, I have witnessed and felt the effects of party darlings being elected to public offices for which they have no training, experience or motivation. People who are selected, not by the people, but by party elites (as party primaries are virtually dead in this state).
At the state and local level, positions like Register of Wills, Treasurer, Auditor, County Administrator etc. should be held by people with experience, education and training in those fields. Do I care what the Register of Wills thinks about Obama Care? Nope. Do I care that they know how to run an office and deal with death? Yes.
An election should be an extended job interview, yet I have never heard anyone asked questions like “What’s your management style?” or “how would you handle a difficult situation?” or “How will your training and experience help you in this job?”
So, I’m voting based on qualifications. There is only one candidate running for treasurer with financial experience. I don’t care that he might run for another office later in life. He should. And I might not vote for him then. In this office, he’s going to have little influence over social policies. There is only one candidate running for AG that has worked in the AGs office. She knows what the job means, and has quit her job for the chance to lead the organization. Experience AND balls. She’s got my vote.
In summary: Screw you. I vote for who I want to. And its sentiment like this that makes me want to drop my D registration entirely.
I look at qualifications of the candidate. The Dems have been running DE into the ground! Fisker, failure! Bloom Energy-had to pull money from the citizens, disguised in our Delmarva bills. Poor education programs.
Now we have to live with it!
Your premise would hold some validity, if candidates of like parties actually did all you attributed to these individuals. how many logos or the name of a party is on candidates’s signs, buttons, or advertisements? If they are not proud of the party, why should voters vote for the party? When an elected officials behavior is reprehensible and the party leadership condones and rewards him with prime committee appointments and funds, only fools would support those elected officials. If an individuals support is wanted, then the party has to earn it. If party’s haven’t fi out yet, then they are living in another era. When they behave like they are proud to be Democrats, then they will earn the vote. When I see a sign with a name on it and not the political party they represent they make me wonder how honest they will be, how easy they will sell their vote for a heard of cows, or a trip to a football game. This is the 21st century and votes are highly valued, each one, and it’s more believable to believe in one person who will do the right thing, than the government that erodes more of my rights every day, and a government made up of thieves, liars, and scoundrels.
Let me deal with several issues raised by some great posts. First, many down ballot offices are stepping stones to bigger offices; locals to statewide, niche statewides to executive postions, reps. to senate, etc. It is not unreasonable to have candidates multi-task, so to speak; take positions on governing issues while having qualifications to do niche offices. And, Dems. in exec., leg. and niche offices can and should work as a team to advance a larger Dem. agenda.
But key issue here; party activists can band together and push Party officers, ie: Exec. committee, DNC et al on core Dem. values articulated in state and DNC platforms. activists, banding together in issues caucuses (Econ. justice/populist, environment, progressives, women’s etc etc. can through the party lean on office holders on key values/issues; can band together and take over the party offices for further clout if existing party officers are furniture. Then, lean further on office holders on key issues/policies.
These same caucuses can do their pressure initially behind closed doors with errant officeholders; media them if that doesn’t work. Yes, and when organized and in the majority in the party office structure, recruit and train oppositional candidates and have real primary shoot outs. This can work faster with some elite money, until we fix the money issues in politics. Yes, there sometimes is left elite money.
All this takes time. But, IMO/experience Dino’s can come around when they see pressure and the demand they do so; some just need to be emboldened.
But, tory dems are in the main still better on social issues than Repugs and some can be improved over time on economic issues.
This stuff is the real business of the Party. Right now, the tail wags the dog. Doesn’t have to be that way.
Let’s be practical.. On one hand you have a Senatorial candidate saying ” Close the Borders”; we need tougher Republican leadership to crack the whips of sedition upon all those not like us; and on the other hand, you have his opponent saying “I get along great with Republican extremists, we’re buddies, vote for me.”
On one hand you have a Congressional candidate saying: we need tougher Republican leadership to FORCE Americans into strict Sharia Conservatism; and the opposing candidate saying… “I get along great with Republican extremists, we’re buddies, vote for me.”
Interesting point about Green candidates. However, no one cares. The elected representative is still going to be the same person it currently is, no matter how many people split off to vote Green… The Green total could grow phenomenally by a whopping 100%, collecting a full 8546 votes this time… great growth, but meaningless compared to the 234,000 going for the winner.
(That said, I’m probably going to throw my vote away to some Greens just so when I die, I won’t be automatically sent to hell for voting for conservatives but that is just personal vanity on my part; it sends no signal and if anything, is simply me exercising my right to not sign on to things upon which I can’t agree.)
And of course, my doing so is dependent upon not Naderizing my vote, thereby allowing Satan to take office instead of one of his peed-on followers….
That said, nothing will change unless our Democratic Congressional delegation is seriously challenged in a primary and we force them to regularly imbibe massive amounts of Immodium right up to primary election day. The very fact we fail to challenge them, is exactly the reason why we bitch and moan that we are always the ones who get ignored.
In two years no Senators are up for election; therefore we need to go after our Congressman… our Congressman Castle….
Voting straight ticket (at least in Delaware) means that progressives have to either hold their nose or protest vote because, by and large, the available choices are not progressive. The reason the candidates are not progressive is simply because they reflect the population at large AND because they must strive and thrive in political bodies that are not progressive. Just as (by and large) the right’s candidates are not right wing nut jobs. They are just as dissatisfied with their candidates (before and after the election) and they also feel they have to hold their nose when they vote.
As a centrist, I am heartened when both the progressives and the RWNJ share disdain for the same candidate. Given the fractured nature of our political process, first do no harm (to themselves and their constituents) seems like a prudent course for candidates. Incremental progress, in my view, is much better for society than revolution because revolution creates chaos. Of course people tend to be impatient and incrementalism drives them nuts, especially when they can clearly see the future.
But let’s take same sex marriage as a case study. Which better serves society and the nation, one fell swoop by fiat or the incremental momentum building state by state until it’s fait accompli? I’ll choose fait accompli over fiat every single time. I believe the majority of the voters would choose that as well.
The Democratic Party is the party of the center. It’s candidates naturally will reflect that position. You can partially blame the GOP for forcing the Democratic Party to the center. Regardless, the question progressives face is do you pull from left or push from center?
First of all – No fucking way MOTHERFUCKER!!! Not on my watch. VOTE BERNIE AUGUST (G) this NOVEMBER!!!
Now then…
Dave –
“The reason the candidates are not progressive is simply because they reflect the population at large AND because they must strive and thrive in political bodies that are not progressive.”
No and yes. The voting public desires liberal policies. Every opinion poll ever taken supports that simple fact of life. They don’t get liberal candidates because candidates “must strive and thrive in political bodies that are not progressive.”
Delaware GOP once provided good options. After the 2010 primary, though, you’ll never see people like John Brady, Dale Wolf, Dallas Winslow, Battle Robinson or Henry Folsom running on the GOP ticket.
@JM: I would argue that “never” really means “not in our lifetimes.”
Mr Merriman wrote:
While I don’t think that there are too many people in the Bluegrass State who read this site, I’m sure that Alison Grimes would hate your article, because she’s running as hard as she can to separate herself from President Obama and his policies, while Mitch McConnell is telling the voters of Kentucky that a vote for Mrs Grimes is a vote for President Obama and his policies. The same Democratic running away from an unpopular President is occurring amongst Senate candidates in North Carolina, Arkansas, Alaska and Colorado.
The basic problem with your article is that it is written as though we have proportional representation parliamentary elections, such as is done in Israel and Italy. And in those countries, the plurality winning party almost always has to form coalitions with minor, sometimes single-issue, parties to form a government.
That’s not what we have; in our single-member district, the representative is supposed to represent everybody in his district. That means a system which is heavily biased toward a two-party system, and there is as much disagreement amongst Democrats as among Republicans. You are advocating that people like Mrs Grimes be dragged along, whether they agree or not, into voting exactly as the party leadership says they must vote.
Dana, never said any candidate/office holder had to subscribe “exactly” to all the precepts in the Party platform; just MOST of them. I’m not a litmus tester.
Let me share with you Green-sympathizers my own experience which leads me to my view. As the co-founder of a statewide Progressive/Populist caucus within the Party I led collaboration with greens on a variety of projects, including voter registration and advocacy for things like proportional representation. Our caucus positions were virtually identical to those of the state/national Green party.
But the difference for progressives in that environment by working inside the party, often as rivals and competitors to the Tory Dems. was that we had access to the mechanisms and even leaders in the other faction.
Results? We were able to overthrow a Tory Party Chair and replace with another establishment figure, though more open and inclusive. We were able to confront very publicly Tory leaders like fmr. congressman Martin Frost and derail his candidate for party chair. Corner Joe Leiberman and nail him on his pro-war agenda, eyeball to eyeball, witnessed by many. Effectively win control of the Party exec. committee and begin the process of reforming the party positions and move it to the left. Gain access to two party chairs and be invited to one on one present and gain support for much (not all) of our agenda. Be the pivotal caucus to sustain the reelection of another Party chair open to our agenda and in doing so, earn his support of our 6 points of reform demands.
Enough. There’s much more including moving the party platform from centrist to strong left by winning seats on the Platform Committee. Raise vigorous floor battles in our conventions to illustrate to the mainstream Dems that our issues were sound and organizing skillful. This has led over a 13 year period to now the fielding of mostly very progressive candidates statewide as well as locally and take progressivism our from the fringes of the Party to the core of the Party’s value system and leadership. Not the only way to get it done, but being a force within seems much more productive in moving the needle than shouting from the outside fringes.
PP, I don’t know where you’re domiciled to recite such a manifesto in voting expectation for this state. I have to tell you we get a pretty good feel for candidates around here with lip service, voting records, party loyalty, oh and a big one……constituent service. I am a ticket-splitter because I KNOW the intent, work ethic, background, etc., of most of the candidates running affecting me…..and I will never be beholden to a party because you or anyone else thinks they are branded, staffed, vlunteered, and financed by any such party. Down ticket candidates I can assure you have very little, if any support from the coffers of a party, and primarily do represent the interests of their local constituency. And I can assure you, my disappointment in some this year, is clearly why my vote is going to be ending up in some very different columns. And jason….don’t know if you are kidding or not….but yes, Bernie August will be one getting my vote. I don’t need to vote for a winner. I don’t need to vote for a party. But in Delaware, I still feel I can vote my conscience.
As businessmen everywhere anticipate next week’s beginning of the end of socialism, my business line is ringing off the hook with serious inquiries
@Jason
Ok, but it sounds you are saying that liberal = progressive. I agree most people are fairly “liberal” and would agree with the following:
Liberalism is a set of ideals grounded in the social contract (rule by consent of the governed for mutual benefit), both negative liberty (freedom from unreasonable interference) and positive liberty (access to basic resources to pursue one’s goals), and both equality in law (legal rights and privileges), and equality of opportunity (social mobility).
And isn’t progressivism a method of achieving liberal goals rather than an ideology? Yet, it seems here and elsewhere the terms seem to be used pretty interchangeable. Not to get too far afield, but I’m fairly liberal in my thinking, but very pragmatic because I desire solutions that work and am skeptical of solutions many think will work. That’s really the crux of progressivism. But I’m not a progressive am I?
To be honest, I no longer know what a conservative, liberal, or progressive is I suppose. Maybe I never did know!
Dave, in my work with others in creating the Progressive Populist Caucus, we found from the literature that liberalism was the set of ideals as you say, but progressivism as a descriptor tied back to the progressive movement in the early 20th century (think Teddy Roosevelt), thus the organization and action taken to implement a series of reforms that were grounded in economic justice. ie: just wages for labor, ending child labor, banking reform, regulation of industry and finance, etc.
We came to the conclusion that liberalism’s emphasis (not exclusively, but emphasis) was on social justice issues: civil liberties, civil rights, women’s rights… and Progressivism’s emphasis was on economic issues(again, emphasis, but not exclusively)……..wages, progressive taxation, economic mobility, income/wealth distribution/accumulation. Thus, American socialists and marxists consider themselves progressives, not liberals.
Thus, progressives would crown Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders as their leader, liberals, Hillary or Obama within the Democratic party.
Populism was really dicey; to many (per the Populist Moment) it was defined by both a strong anti-government, and anti-NY Bankers(likely with anti-semitic overtones) and anti-big corporations (land seizures, railroads et al) ideology.
Thus, progressive populists advocate reining in corporations and wall street from consumer/environmental harm and policies which move wealth downstream to middle class and poor citizens and empower citizens over corporations. OK, I’ll shut up.
Mr Dils wrote:
Even if we assume that the GOP will take control of the Senate in January, we have to ask what that really means. To me, it means that we’ll get slightly lower appropriations bills passed, and no new, big projects or programs added on for the next two years. It will also mean that President Obama won’t get controversial nominees confirmed, but most nominees aren’t controversial.
There aren’t going to be any new programs or projects passed anyway, even if the Democrats retain control of the Senate, because the House won’t go along, but Republican control of the Senate ought to mean a bit less spending on current ones.
But I wouldn’t count on any already-passed programs to end, unless they have sunset provisions; the President can still veto that.
The term progressive was coined at an economic moment when most Americans worked in agriculture and were literally dirt-poor. To me, progress means progress in extending the benefits of decent food, housing, education, and leisure to the majority instead of just the privileged few. It still means the same thing. In an industrial or post-industrial society, the hallmark of progressivism is progressive taxation. The steeper the income inequality, the steeper the progressive tax rates need to be. And the spending priority should be focused on education and infrastructure. as well as some but not all of the social supports favored by liberals.
The “opposing” conservative position focuses on opportunity rather than progress. To a modern conservative, it doesn’t matter if your people don’t make economic progress, as long as you can claim they had the “opportunity” to do so despite all evidence to the contrary.
What is a liberal, what’s a progressive? Good lord – not that again. All I know and care about is the fact that people who are “right of center” in their political beliefs hold disproportionate power in this country because they are better at selling their bullshit to the low information voters.
The people who are left of center STILL haven’t figured out that elections are about salesmanship, not policies. Every mid-term election we get the same crap from Democrat Party gurus. “Our voters aren’t ‘engaged’.” “Democrats are contending with an ‘enthusiasm gap'”
Holy FUCK!!! Are liberals (or whatever you want to call them) really this stupid? No. They aren’t – but the leaders of the allegedly ‘left of center’ parties are. Why is it that we are ‘engaged’ during Presidential elections? We are because during Presidential elections we have candidates who know how marketing works.
The voter’s choice isn’t between Democrat and Republican, and it sure as hell isn’t between a VAT or a sales tax. It is between voting and watching a rerun of ‘NCIS Miami.’
Lawrence O’Donnell, who I usually dismiss as a partisan hack, made a great statement in the documentary about Ralph Nader caller “An Unreasonable Man.” He said that nothing will change until you convince your team that your vote isn’t guaranteed.
I understand the political reality today. A vote against the team in the blue strip is basically a vote for the team in the red strip. But remember that’s just for today. The idea that I need to hold my nose and vote D because I’m against almost everything for which the other stands actually disgusts me.
As far as the liberal/progressive versus conservative spectrum, I heard David Simon give a talk a few weeks ago and he demonstrated it pretty well. On one end is personal “freedom” and “liberty” (great slogans!) and on the other is the idea that each human is responsible in some way for everyone else. Call it “sharing” or maybe mutual responsibility. Understanding that 100% of either one is tyranical and totalitarian… but unless everyone understands that she/he has some accountability for a homeless woman at 3rd & Walnut or an inmate in Smryna or an African with Ebola we’re completely fucked as human beings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYXNdELqCe4
Those are the two ends. The sad thing is that almost everyone who believes in 100% PERSONAL accountability and think they owe nothing to a common cause will be in the gutters with the rest of us when the real monied power retreat to their gated compounds and their personal police forces.
True. The middle class Republicans are the most pitiful of all.
Yep. Those working class and middle class and upper-middle class conservatives will be in the post-apocalyptic nightmare with the rest of us. They’ll really wish they understood everyone’s interconnectedness sooner. Of course until then every Joe the Plumber thinks he’ll be Jamie Dimon one day if only he didn’t have to pay taxes. Liberals generally understand they won’t and that all of us have a real responsibility for, say, the mentally ill homeless man in LA or the kids living without proper toilets in India.
And to the original point, I will not vote Democrat because Republicans are worse. This is political near-sighted rubbish. If a Democratic candidate understood the continuum I described I’ll vote for them. If they are corporate shrills in the Coonsain or Carneyian sense… they can forget it.
I would love to see the Republican party put forth viable candidates. I’m a reasonably educated, secular, white male who is pro labor, pro reproductive rights and concerned about energy and environmental issues. The republican party has absolutely nothing to offer someone like me
“Politics expresses moral values.”
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/im-a-partyist-and-yes-i-judge-your-politics.html
This is probably the stupidest post I’ve ever seen on this site. Don’t complain about bad politicians if you believe you don’t need to check each candidate. And certainly don’t try to convince other people to follow this sure way of electing the same asshat corruptocrats over and over again. Delaware seems to have a special knack for that.