Ha, about a year ago my friends and I put together a list of celebrity dopplegangers for famous pols, and Joe Palpatine was at the top. Rock on.

And, er, if Lieberman is Palpatine, does that make Kucinich a Jawa? (Special bonus points to whoever dubs over sections of Kucnich speaking at the AFL-CIO Dem debate with Jawa sound clips.)

At least CA still has some untrammelled democracy, eh?

My CA Recall Poll ("Guaranteed non-scienfitic!") is here.

Why am I not shocked at the Democratic Party not being very Democratic anymore?

Because it is a party? ;)

Upon further reflection, the Michigan Democratic Party sounds like the "representative democracy" practiced in CP voting in the PRC. Individual CP members vote for village- or city-level reps, and these reps vote for people above them, and so on and so forth.

Oh get over yourself.

Take a look at California. They're going to skip any kind of primary whatsoever (how else do you think a pro-choice Republican could be the front runner?) and elect a new governor with less than a majority of the total votes cast.

That's how we do leadership elections here in Canada, though it isn't something done during candidate nominations.

OTOH, if you're serious about taking back the Democratic Party, isn't this a good thing? Steps back to the older days of more value in the party infrastructure which played a moderating role on the candidates, because the people making decisions had a long-term commitment to the party not just a couple of issues.

It also becomes easier for party central to step in and apply pressure if they see a kook candidate on the horizon (McKinney, Kucinich, et. al.)

That's not a pure democratic framework, I agree. But then, America is a republic and what you've described not inconsistent with those precepts. I say let them run the experiment, and see what happens. Good or bad, the structural differences and outcomes will teach us something.

I suppose you disdain the electoral college as well.

Ara: What do I need to get over? The fact that Democrats no longer want voters influencing them? They can do whatever they want, but I wouldn't use "at least we're not as crazy as California" as my excuse.

David: No, I love the electoral college; it's one of the best things about the American system. Like the Senate, it serves to prevent the big states from completely dominating the country. It also forces Presidential candidates to pay attention to regional issues, and discourages them from dividing up voters along religious and ethnic lines (and if you think they do it now, realize they could do it a hell of a lot more in a pure popular election system). The Electoral College also, frankly, minimizes the damage that can be done with a close election. Can you imagine how horrible 2000 would have been if the candidates had been seeking recounts in every close precinct nationwide where they thought they could pick up a few votes, rather than just in select parts of Florida?

This comparison doesn't work for me, though, because the electors are pledged to individual candidates. If Michigan's Democratic delegates were pledged to candidates on the ballot--which they are not at this time--that would seem okay to me. I believe that's how most nominations are handled in New York. That just seems smart, because then you know where the delegate stands, but also realize he has freedom of conscience if circumstances change dramatically between the primary and the nominating convention. That would certainly seem like a nice compromise to me.

Dean, I think Ara might've been referring to my comparison between Communist Party voting methods in the PRC and the Democratic Party. But I'm just making a statement of fact, not trying to say the Democrats are Communists; and in fact, in many ways, this "filtered representation" is like what the founding fathers employed to elect presidents in the early years of American history. I'd call it elitist more so than undemocratic ;-)

Take a look at California. They're going ... elect a new governor with less than a majority of the total votes cast.

I've Dowdified Ara's statement to make a point. This is how governors are elected in most states: by plurality. The only difference in the recall is that there's no primary, and there are going to be close to 100 candidates so the winner could, in theory, get just over 1% of the total vote. Of course, "in theory" has a specific meaning and connotation in most real-world discussions.

If Ara thinks the theory sounds bad, he should consider what might have happened had Davis succeeded in getting his name ordered onto the list of candidates to replace him should the recall succeed. In theory, if 98% of the voters favored the recall, but 2% voted for Davis, the result would be that the recall would, in effect, be defeated.

When it's theory vs. reality, theory always loses.

...if 98% of the voters favored the recall, but 2% voted for Davis, the result would be that the recall would, in effect, be defeated.

Correction! Should read:

...if 98% of the voters favored the recall, but 2% voted for Davis, the result Could be that the recall would, in effect, be defeated.

Ara: Your comment was:
1. Wrong in suggesting that pro-choice candidates can't win Republican primaries in California. That happens all the time. How do you think Pete Wilson elected in 1990 and 1994? Here's a hint: the same way his fellow pro-choicer Matt Fong got to be the nominee for Senate in 1998 (beating anti-abortionist Darrell Issa, IIRC).
2. Wrong in that it that it implies governors normally have to be elected by majority. They don't. Davis himself got only a plurality in 2002, as did all the other statewide officials except Bill Lockyer.
3. Irrelevant in that it implies that any of this has anything to do with Michigan politics.

Other than that, your analysis is spot-on.

Come on over, make the switch.

I promise chairwoman Betsy won't make you buy any Amway products.

Just for the record, the Governator won with a majority of the votes cast. But you're right, the CA vote has nothing to do with MI's DP imposing on folks its own brand of "every vote should count." Then again, why have a primary at all? As party HQ apparently realizes, it's so much easier and more efficient to decide things by edict. Changing the rules again so as to limit the voting power of those pesky delegates, too, wouldn't be very difficult, now that the voters have even less say. An ironically named party, indeed.