Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Repeating history...again....

(This post is written for the weekly Carnival of Ohio Politics now in it's tenth week thanks to Paul Miller at Northwest Ohio Net make sure to visit Wednesday to see what some of Ohio's best bloggers are writing about)

Let's flash back to the early 1900's:

The Reverend Herbert Bigelow of Cincinnati was instrumental in gaining passage of the direct primary in Ohio, which became law in 1906. Ohio's direct primary law required a primary election for candidates running for state, county, and local elections.

Americans were becoming more and more concerned about corruption within the political process in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These concerns contributed to the growth of Progressivism, a major reform movement of this era. One reform instituted by Progressives in many states was the direct primary. Until the advent of the direct primary, political parties usually chose their candidates in closed-door meetings or at political conventions. As a result of this process, a few influential people were often able to manipulate the party's choice of candidates. Progressives believed that this process led to political corruption and kept elections from being truly democratic. With a direct primary system, the voters chose for themselves who would represent their political party in the regular election.

Then, take a moment and read what Michael Meckler wrote on Red-State:

(Chris) Redfern once told me during his campaign for ODP chair that he wanted to be the Democratic Bob Bennett, by which he meant that he wanted to achieve the same degree of success and stability for Ohio Democrats that Bennett has achieved in his 18 years running the Ohio GOP. One of the hallmarks of Bennett's tenure has been the avoidance of primaries, which has allowed Republican candidates to save their money and their venom for Democrats in the general election.

Read this again:

....a few influential people were often able to manipulate the party's choice of candidates. Progressives believed that this process led to political corruption and kept elections from being truly democratic. With a direct primary system, the voters chose for themselves who would represent their political party in the regular election.

We either need to learn to raise the dead and bring back Reverend Herbert Bigelow; give up on the primary process; or demand that this stop and that we have a choice.

I think you know which option I'm selecting.....

8 comments:

historymike said...

It is unfortunate that we, the people, really don't have as much to say about our electoral choices, isn't it Lisa?

Too many backroom deals...this most recent one stinks to hiiiiigh heaven.

Unknown said...

I found it ironic that 100 years ago things became corrupt enough that people acted to demand change. Hopefully that is one part of history that will also be repeated.

:-)

Scott G said...

He probably wouldn't have won the primaries, but that is not the point or reason to push him out. He brings new ideas and a fresh outlook that scares party people. Voters could ask questions and think they have a choice

Unknown said...

I thought he could win the primary, before the behind the back political gaming started. Once the party machine decided he was done it was pretty obvious. I still really believe to win the general you are going to have to attract more than just "progressive" democrats. I'm not sure that Sherrod can do that, but I was pretty sure that Hackett could. I watched it happen.

Mark said...

Unfortunately, lately we've had to re-experience far too much history. I hope Ohio teaches their local DNC that this is NOT acceptable. Good luck, folks!

psst. I'd vote for Hackett as a write-in candidate.

Mark said...

I am a conservative, but I could not agree more with your thoughts, Lisa. Ohio's GOP is trying to freeze out good candidates like Bill Pierce, and it appears the Dems are doing the same thing to folks like hackett, who i will admit i was not a big fan of, but i could understand his charisma and popularity.

The problem is that we, the voters, have allowed this to happen. We have not held our central committees of our chosen parties accountable (remember, they are elected, too!) and we have not forced them to take a stand against corruption, on both sides of the aisle. Until this happens, the process will feed upon itself--this corruption and backdoor dealing feeding apathy, apathy feeding more perceived need for unified backdoor dealing, etc.

Unknown said...

Mark, thank you for making a very valid point when it comes to Central Committees. That is the only way some of this will change and I agree with you that it is an issue for both Republican and Democrats, as well as we Independents too because we look to both parties as to our choice. While on a logical point I can't blame Chris Redfern for trying to emulate what Bob Bennett has been able to do as far as saving candidates from higher expenses related to a primary race, I want primaries to be what they were designed, to give voters the final say in who they wanted to represent them in the general election.

Jill said...

Exactly, Lisa - the voter. That's who I believe really gets taken for granted and manipulated.