No, that would not be within the power of the Democratic power, and what happened to the will of the voter? Should not the voters decide, not the Party? Did you not hear (or read) the loud screams and complaints about the Super Delegates during the 2016 primary? Not to mention general unfairness to Sanders. How about if the DNC just said “OK, Sanders- you cant run”
No, no no. The Democratic Party is wise to stay out of the primary selection process.
Right now, it could be Two Dems- it is Becerra 19, with Hilton and Steyer both at 17%, and the other GOP way down at 10%. And yes, maybe how CA runs it’s primary elections could be improved, but that is up to lawmakers, not the Dem party unilaterally.
If the party had that kind of sway pver who could run under their name, Hillary Clinton would have been the nominee in 2008 and McCain would have won, because the interests of the party leadership are not aligned with those of the electorate and haven’t been in a long time.
It’s up to the voters to drag the party in the right direction, not vice versa.
That is only one poll result among many in your link. Look at the top line for the aggregate number from all the polls: Hilton at 20.4, Becerra at 18.8 and Steyer at 16.2. That’s a pretty big difference for Hilton.
However, I agree with your main point that, in primaries, the voters rule, not the party.
There is nothing the party should do, more than it already is. The problem, such as it is, lies with the primary system currently in place, which is not cast in stone.
Shrug - it was democratically voted on by the people. The margin wasn’t huge, but it was what it was. Repealing it would require yet another ballot proposition to amend the CA constitution yet again. I can guarantee if Bianco and Hilton both squeezed in that would happen. But barring that, probably not. It generally benefits the dominant party (the Democrats in CA) and they aren’t going to be motivated to organize to change it unless the unthinkable happens and a major office like governor gets two Republican candidates.
Under the California Constitution, political parties are not entitled to formally nominate candidates for voter-nominated offices at the Primary Election, and a candidate nominated for a voter-nominated office at the Primary Election is not the official nominee of any party for the office in question at the ensuing General Election. A candidate for nomination or election to a voter-nominated office must, however, designate his or her party preference, or lack of party preference, and have that designation reflected on the Primary and General Election ballot, but the party designation so indicated is selected solely by the candidate and is shown for the information of the voters only. It does not constitute or imply an endorsement of the candidate by the party designated, and no candidate nominated by the qualified voters for any voter-nominated office shall be deemed to be the officially nominated candidate of any political party. The parties may have a list of candidates for voter-nominated offices, who have received the official endorsement of the party, printed in the sample ballot.
WA is the same way, and people are free to list any preference they want, even if it’s a party that consists solely of themselves. We have a perennial House candidate in my district who identifies with the “Congress Sucks Party”.
Thank you, that is illuminating. The law makes it difficult for parties to endorse candidates. I’m wondering if the law is legal under the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution, since endorsing candidates is fundamental to the purpose of a political party. But in any case, the parties need to improve the process, either by changing their own internal processes, or by changing the California law.
It may interest you to know that political parties are not mentioned in the US constitution or any of its amendments.
Political parties have no inherent power, rights or responsibilities. They are simply aggregations of people who have (very) roughly similar opinions about government; they are funded by donations, and their only “authority” is their ability to spend that money to influence the opinions of voters.
To suggest that the California primary law is flawed only because this year there was the apparent (probably not real) possibility that Democrats could be shut out is very short-sighted, in my opinion. This does not mean that the law is not flawed or could not be improved, but let us not run around in panic because of this year’s issues.
Indeed, there weren’t any real national political parties in the United States when the first version was being incubated and was signed in 1787, most political conflict still being dominated by state governments under the Articles of Confederation. It was only during the ratification fight for the Constitution that the national Federalist and anti-Federalist factions started to emerge and only after the election of John Adams in 1796 that an officially party-affiliated president came to power.
Exactly, which makes it problematic that a law forbids those people from endorsing a candidate. We, as individuals, certainly have the right to endorse candidates. We, as an organized group, should be able to as well.
Agreed. The Democratic Party needs to better adapt to the current law, instead of being ill-prepared for this situation.
Or maybe adapt the law to better reflect the people’s opinions. The Alaska system of a jungle primary followed by 4 person instant runoff general election would be a much better electoral system than going back to single party primaries. Its main adavantage is that it reduces negative ads, since candidates want to backers of other candidates to choose them as their second choice. A certain prominent Republican candidate for Congress didn’t understand that in an election a few years ago, allowing a Democrat, who otherwise would not likely have been elected, to win.
It would have been trivial for a party official to arrange a morning-long conference among the declared candidates in early April. Without endorsing anyone, they could have gotten them to agree as to what to do in the even that none are polling in the top two once margin of error is factored in. They could facilitate back-channel communications between the candidates.
There’s a LOT they can do without controlling or dictating.
I do not understand what would be unethical or illegal about it. I’m not suggesting that the party officials DICTATE. I’m suggesting they FACILITATE.
Are candidates not allowed to talk to each other? To strategize? It’s not like I’m suggesting something secretive or underhanded. What would the candidates be objecting to?
They organized debates, and I am sure they had completely unofficial talks. But again, the Dems are smarting from the angry revolt of the Sanders supporters in 2016. Any such “facilitation” would be seen as pressure. Dont you remember how the Sanders supporters screamed about how unfair “Super delegates”?
Sure, they can. But if the DNC organized it- that could- and would- be called pressure.
I see. So what would be unethical wouldn’t be anything they actually did, but how people might perceive it.
Well, that’s a great reason to avoid doing something useful. To be fair, it is true that they’re poor communicators as a brand, but it seems like a great way to avoid the problem you suggest would be simple and clear communication.
