In my opinion, there is no need to simplify the process of elections in the United States. I think that there may be several things that should be changed, meaning substituted but not simplified. Here is what I mean.
I think that the system in which there are constituents – regular citizens – who elect representatives who that elect candidates for the office of the President of the United States is not very reliable because there is always a good chance that elected representatives will adhere to the initial expectations of those who elected them. Therefore, I think this is a flaw o American democracy, the elections should become direct, without any delegation of votes or something. Direct ballot casting would be the most precise and the most explicit way to make the record of the will of the nation, without any need to refer to the use of dubious representation.
However, I outlined a thing that I think should be changed but not simplified. To the contrary, in my opinion, the complexity of the election process as well as its protracted nature is a good basis for transparency in elections. Many rounds of public debates, numerous successive votings, the complex but very tailored-to-the-needs of-the-society scheme of division of districts, etcetera – all of this adds up to the greater diversification of public voice and ways it can be heard through. The election process therefore becomes more flexible and transparent. In other words, I think, the complex election system in America is one of the major mechanisms that make this country the most sophisticated and perfect democracy in the world.
Of the six factors that determine the winner of the invisible primary which is the most important and why?
I think that among those factors that were enumerated the most crucial one for winning the invisible primary is fundraising. This can even be concluded from the fact that the more common name or the process of invisible primary is money primary. However, apart from lexicological explanation here is a logical one, about why I think so.
The other five factors actually depend on how much money a candidate can raise. Let’s analyze it. Primarily, effectiveness of campaign. It is easily understood that it depends heavily – as well as primarily and almost exclusively – on how much resources are being poured into the campaign of a given candidate. The bigger amount of money he raises the more advertisements and anti-advertisements he can issue, the more awareness he can raise, the more attention he can draw to his person and to what he does. The more funds he gets the more useful projects he can fulfil that will win him credibility, respect and support for further action through specific projects that are beneficial for the entire society.
Now, free media. It is well known that the amount of funds raised and the opinion polls are the two main indicators media use to try to foresee who is going to be the winner of the race. Therefore, the more money a candidate raises the more positive coverage (which becomes his unintentional promotion on the part of the media) he gets. Let’s proceed to important endorsements. In order to become endorsed, as it has already been said, a candidate should have sufficient resources to pour them into specific projects for which he will later be endorsed and praised. No money means no possibilities for action, no action means no awareness of a candidate, no awareness means no support and therefore, failure in opinion polls, another factor that now turns out to be dependent on successful fundraising.
All of the above being said we can see that fundraising is alpha and omega of the election campaign. This may sound cynical but it is also pragmatic.
Does anything regarding the Democrat exit polls in Michigan surprise you? Has Sanders found momentum and focus? What is your prediction for the Democratic Party in Ohio?
There are several things that surprise me regarding the Michigan exit polls. Some of these things are logically surprising while other are illogically surprising. Among the former ones there is the point that division between those who voted for Sanders and those who voted for Clinton was made very explicitly according to the gender principle. 55 percent of those who voted for Sanders were men and 51 percent for Clinton. However, what is illogically surprising is that most of those who voted for Sanders in Michigan are actually below 40. Moreover, the younger share of the constituency we take the bigger margin Sanders who is far older, has over Clinton! The other explicit benefits Sanders has to boast is that he managed to draw support from more educated share of the Michigan society than Clinton did.
Given all of the above I think that Sanders really did find momentum and focus. He is generally doing better during the primaries than most people expected and is growing popular in those social groups that are quite unexpected for him (again, the example with age groups).
A very important thing for Sanders is that the benefits that have just been outlined above for him are not inherent only of his campaign in Michigan. His political platform with what many designate as a socialist pivot and his approach promise a no less share of youth support in Ohio than in Michigan.
Another very important issue is this. It is explicitly traced in the Michigan primaries outcome that blacks, Hispanics and other minorities supported Clinton whereas Sanders won the support of the whites. Given that in the state of Ohio 83 percent of population is constituted from whites Sanders has a great chance to win the primaries in this state as well. Probably his chances here are even better than they were in Michigan.
