Mitt Romney took a decisive victory in the Florida primaries of the U.S. presidential elections today, and all eyes in the Republican Party are looking to see what's next in this hotly contested election. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul were non-factors in the final tally. Although, both Santorum and Paul have avid fans, they just don't have enough to be competitive in the Republican race on a large scale. Or, so conventional wisdom says.
The election process that is unfolding every day brings to mind several things that have the potential to profoundly influence the elections; the treatment of independent voters in the primary elections, campaign finance policies and the global impact of the American presidential race.
With the Republican primaries in full swing, and President Obama's part in the election process yet to officially start, how are independent voters factoring in to the election? More than twenty states have closed primaries, meaning independent voters cannot vote in the primaries. And, USA Today analysis shows that since the 2008 Presidential elections the number of registered Democrats declined in 25 of the 28 states that register voters by party, while Republican voter count dropped in 21 states. At the same time, the number of independents increased in 18 states. In the eight swing states that register voters by party, Independents have gained 325,000 voters. With movement of voters away from party affiliation, it not only changes the number of voters affiliated with a party, it has a profound impact on the entire voting process.
Supporters of the closed primary system argue that independents have no business voting in primaries because the primary purpose of the primaries is to decide on the person to represent each party. Independents, by definition, claim no party affiliation. There are arguments, however, that the effect of excluding so many people from this part of the process has wider impact than might be obvious. Research suggests that closed primary voting creates polarizing effects in voters and in the candidates' behavior and the effects on candidates' behavior is long lasting. Studies reveal, “institutions of any deliberative body serve to constrain the space of possible outcomes and thereby shape the behavior of legislators." In plain English, they suggest closed system primaries create behavior in legislators that leads them to be less likely to act in a bipartisan manner and to be willing to negotiate and compromise with their counterparts across the aisle. Yet, nearly half of the states in the U.S. still have some form of closed primaries. So, more and more people are moving into a category of voters that have less influence on their own governance in many ways.
What about the international importance of U.S. elections? Are other countries really all that interested in who becomes president of the United States? You bet they are. Foreign companies invested nearly $6 billion in U.S. gas and oil drilling just in January alone, and that's just one segment of the economy. American fiscal and foreign policy is on the minds of every major country's leadership. Although the U.S. has not maintained as dominant a position in the global economy as it once had, it is still a major player and its financial and political fate is inextricably intertwined with many other countries. Direct foreign investment figures, which are a primary measure of the amount of money other countries invest in American companies, continue to show heavy foreign investment in the U.S. in spite of all the economic indicators pointing to financial declines.
How does campaign finance figure into the overall picture? The Center for Responsive Politics estimates campaigns, political parties and corporations will spend $6 billion in the 2012 U.S. elections, far exceeding the spending of other countries' election campaigns. For many it begs the question, "What do campaign supporters expect for their contributions?" Writer Mark Twain once called the U.S. Congress the, "best Congress money can buy," and many think political contributions are a leading indicator of how an elected official will vote once in office. There has been no lack of concern about corruption in politics, and no lack of actual corruption that has been uncovered over the years. Not only do political figures have money thrown at their campaigns, but the attempts to influence their votes once they're in office are rampant. Lobby groups blanket Capitol Hill on a regular basis doing everything they can to ensure legislation favoring their interests is passed, and anything that could hurt their cause is squashed.
Corruption concerns over the years have prompted the creation of many watchdog groups, and their number is growing all the time. One of the large watchdog organizations, Transparency International, says, "it's not just how much will be spent, but where the money is coming from that threatens the integrity of politics around the world." When money talks, people listen, and politics is definitely no exception. Just think back to the corruption that was uncovered in some of the corporate scandals, like Enron and Arthur Andersen, and imagine the political equivalent unfolding in the U.S. legislative machine. To say it's a scary thought is an understatement, and then some.
As the Republican primaries press on in the U.S., with almost half the states' independent voters not even participating in the process, and with enormous amounts of money fueling the American election machine the world watches. What unfolds will have a major impact on the next four years of American, and even global politics and economics. With all the interest in the process, how many American voters will even vote? That's a conversation for another day.
Happy voting.
Blogger: John Sanchez |
