A mistaken belief is the Democratic Party speaks for those whom the GOP does not speak. “False equivalence” hardly does justice to this situation.
In 1968, Hubert Humphrey was the Democratic Party nominee for President, but never won a primary. The party’s rules were changed to give greater voice to the people. After 1980, in which incumbent President Carter struggled for the party’s nomination against Senator Ted Kennedy, the party created super delegates because party leaders felt they had lost control of the party.
The Framers of the Constitution opposed “factions” (a/k/a political parties). The Framers, a handful of well-educated white men who owned land and were wealthy, were no populists. They scrapped, outside their charter, which had been to make improvements to, the Articles of Confederation.
The Framers might have opposed our modern political parties, but also might have endorsed the notion of “super delegates.”
The Constitution inherently is weighted toward a two-party system: “checks and balances,” veto by a President to be overridden by a super-majority vote in Congress, etc., imply two forces. After the 1787 Convention, two parties arose and fashioned statutes and rules to their favor; e.g., in Indiana today, the two “major” political parties enjoy automatic placement on ballots, whereas non-traditional parties (a term I prefer to “third parties,” as if all other parties are tied) must either receive a specific percentage of the votes for Indiana Secretary of State, or petition for placement of candidates on the ballot. Another advantage for “major” political parties is we subsidize primary elections.
Yesterday we learned the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”), “in exchange for a joint fundraising pledge by the ... Clinton campaign [to help] fund the DNC through the election year” “gave the presidential campaign of ... Clinton some day-to-day control over the party early in the 2016 campaign.” (WaPo, 11/02/17). In a CNN interview, Senator Elizabeth Warren said she believed the primary contest between Clinton and Sanders had been rigged.
Whomever one voted for as President in 2016, unless the vote specifically was for a person controlled by Russian oligarchs, Putin had final say on the winner. The story of DNC bias is not one of illegal conduct that anyone has alleged as of yet.
On the other hand, Trump campaign collusion, acceptance of money from foreign actors, etc.—a big “et cetera”—has delivered up grand jury investigation and indictments. Also, no one yet has analyzed the degree, if any, to which Russia interfered in the Democratic primaries to ensure Clinton was the nominee.
The Democratic Party lost the election for President in 2000, at the Supreme Court. A lot of people died in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Democratic Party vowed there would be changes in the election system. Such an outrageous outcome never again would be allowed—and yet 2016's election was worse. Party bosses were pre-occupied.
We must take back our system from party bosses. Putin wants to damage, even destroy, the U.S. If the occupant of the Oval Office creates chaos, Putin is happy.
If the DNC and the Clinton campaign did as former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile writes is true, the idiots responsible should be sacked. Meanwhile, we cannot lose sight of the fact the current occupant of the Oval Office was placed there by, and for the benefit of, Russia’s oligarchs—and that is treason..