Saturday, April 23, 2016

The Right of Choice in a Vote Shall not be Constrained

   Freedom of vote, the right to vote freely for whomever one chooses, is not always an honored right, not in America and not in Utah.
   In Utah, you cannot write in a candidate when you do not like those on the ballot, unless, per chance, the person you write in is registered as a write-in candidate.
   What if the freedom to choose the candidate of your choice were a Constitutional right? What if there were an amendment worded similarly to another right mentioned in the Bill of Rights: "The right to vote for whomever one chooses shall not be infringed"? Or, to make it clearer, what if we added this: "Nor shall the vote of any person be compulsed, nor regulated. Nor shall the right to express that vote be restrained. Nor shall the right to support or oppose any candidate or viewpoint be constrained or imposed on the people."
   It might yet be a good law, protecting the right of people to vote freely, of their own choice, and without retribution, but it would yet need some more wording unless we were to allow it to bring to a screeching halt our current political system.
  The idea behind such a law would be to prevent political parties from imposing loyalty oaths. In this state, for example, the Utah County Republican Party dictates that no Republican office holder or candidate shall be allowed to support anyone except the party's own candidate. Some would say that does not quite rise to the level of dictating how a person votes, although it does ban the expression of how they intend to vote. Some would say it does rise to the level of dictating how to vote, as they are not to support any other candidate, and voting for someone is a form of support.
    At any rate, it does silence free speech. And, political bodies hailing the right to free speech as one of their most basic tenets should not be in the business of restricting that free speech.
   So, would this be a good law: "The right to vote for whomever one chooses shall not be infringed. Nor shall the vote of any person be compulsed, nor regulated. Nor shall the right to express that vote be restrained. Nor shall the right to support or oppose any candidate or viewpoint be constrained or imposed upon the people"?
   Unless we added some more words, it would bring to an end the delegate system. No longer could delegates be pledged to vote for a particular candidate. Once a delegate was at convention, he or she could vote for whoever they wanted. This wording could be added, then: "The exception is that voters can be elected to carry forth the people's votes for candidates."
   I am not so sure we should want this last clause, however. I have some wonder as to why we even have the delegate system as it is. If we are just electing someone to pass along our vote, why not just eliminate the middleman and do away with the caucus and convention? Why not let our votes in the primaries count directly for the candidates we vote for, and there be no delegates to water down the system?
   I understand the principle of republican government. But, I don't know that it has much credence unless you intend to let the person you elect to do the electing vote of his or her own free will. If you want to have middlemen, then elect them with no constraints other than to be charged with studying the candidates and voting for the best. I believe that intent is behind the republican form of elections. Electing someone to simply pass along your vote only bends and twists and, in some cases, hinders the democratic vote. Occasionally, someone gets elected who did not really win the popular vote.
   Decide which of the two systems you want, either the republican form or the democratic form. But Do not suppose that by electing electors who must vote as you dictate, you are following the republican form. You are still demanding a democratic form, but are skewering it so it sometimes is not accurate.
   Even as I write this blog, the two parties are in convention, electing delegates to the national conventions. Will those delegates simply pass along the will of the Utah voters, or will super delegates and such other provisions provide a change-up from the map the voters laid out? In the case of whether they should be compelled to vote for Cruz, if they are a Cruz nominee, consider that some of the popular vote would have went to Mitt Romney, had people been allowed to vote for him. Even though he was not on the ballot, he remained the choice with many in the public. Unfortunately, in Utah, as I said earlier, you cannot write in a candidate unless that person has the status of being registered as a write-in candidate. If, as this blogs is suggesting, people were accorded the right to vote for whoever they chose without that right being infringed upon, voters could have written in Romney's name.
   Many might have done so. A draft-Romney campaign would have been much more likely.
   So, to say delegates should be obligated to vote for Cruz on the second ballot in order to carry out the will of the people is a misnomer. Voting for Romney on the first ballot might well be the will of the people. While that isn't reflected in the actual results of the Utah caucus, that is only because Utah restricts the right of vote, the right to vote freely for whomever one chooses.

No comments:

Post a Comment