Yesterday, I suggested that at our caucus meetings, we elect more delegates to convention. As I typed, I realized this could easily exacerbate a problem we already have.
When spots are not filled at the caucus meetings, there is a danger they will be filled by the party machinery in favor of one candidate and at the expense of the other candidate(s).
So, if enough delegate spots are not already not being filled, having more openings does invite more corruption. So, if these spots are not filled at caucus, we should either leave them empty or be careful how they are filled. It is inappropriate for the party leadership to be making the appointments based on their own favoritism. It is inappropriate that one candidate should be able to slide in names for delegates while his or her opponent is not even aware it is happening.
It reminds me somewhat of super delegates in the presidential process. Is this worse than that, though? These are delegates not designated to be anything other than people elected by the caucus-goers, I believe. Nor are they designed to be picked by one candidate at the expense of the other. So, for the process to be circumvented at the expense of one candidate, that strikes me as drifting into an area called campaign corruption.
No comments:
Post a Comment