Did you know that if a given political
party already has an incumbent in a particular political post, it’s
standard practice in the United States for a political party to prohibit
its voter-list to be purchased by anyone who’s not an incumbent
office-holder in that party — including by someone who wishes to
challenge or contest within that party the incumbent, in a primary
election?
Only incumbents have access to that crucial list — crucial for any candidate in a primary election.
Here’s an example:
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a long-time
unquestioningly loyal operative of Hillary Clinton, was selected by the
Democratic President Barack Obama (though she condemned Obama while he
was running against Clinton in 2008) to run the Democratic National
Committee, so that Obama’s Administration will be continued with little
change by his (chosen) successor (just a change of the President’s name,
and only a bit more of a neo-conservative on her foreign policies than
he was). However, Ms. DWS has a very low approval-rating from her
constituents, and a Bernie Sanders supporter wants to contest her in a
Democratic primary. But, he says:
Last week, I called the Florida
Democratic Party to request access to the voter file database
and software known as VAN that is routinely used by
Democratic candidates across the country.
I was told that our campaign would be
denied access to this database because I am running against an incumbent
Democrat, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I was also told that any Democratic
candidate running against an incumbent Democrat would be denied access.
A reader-comment there was:
I’ve learned that this is standard
practice in most states, to block challengers from the same party going
up against incumbents.
I think it’s bullshit. I’ve asked people to give me some good reasoning why this is a standard practice, and *crickets*.
In other words: Politicians campaign hypocritically saying they favor ’term-limits’ but universally support the real reason (which isn’t the lack of term-limits; it’s the lack of fairness,
such as this) why even the most vile incumbents get re-‘elected’ time
and again: this thuggish custom of the Democratic and Republican
political Parties, which blocks challengers from having access to the
most crucial tool for becoming a Party’s nominee: the list of that
Party’s registerd voters. Only the existing incumbent can buy that list.
(Of course, if the ‘opposite’ Party has the incumbent in the
contest, then the DNC/RNC will sell the person that list in order to
yank the seat to their Party. The most-rigged part of American
‘democracy’ might be primary elections, not general
elections — which is what politicians most discuss in public as being
rigged, such as especially both of GWB’s Presidential ‘wins’, which were
exceptionally scandalous.)
Among the many ways in which the United
States is not a democracy, the operation of primaries by Parties which
actually represent their incumbents and not at all the public, is an
important one. And the incumbent politicians never publicize it. Only a
few aspiring challengers ‘complain’ about it — and the public never
likes a ‘complainer.’
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment