“If Democrats truly want to make this election about democracy, they might start by looking at the recent trends in their own house.”
Since #KamalaHarris wasn’t on the primary ticket for voters, delegates choosing her as the nominee is undemocratic, and follows on a long history of party leaders not trusting their voters, writes a political scientist:
https://theconversation.com/democratic-partys-choice-of-harris-was-undemocratic-and-the-latest-evidence-of-party-leaders-distrusting-party-voters-236002
#Election2024 #News #USPolitics
Democratic Party’s choice of Harris was undemocratic − and the latest evidence of party leaders distrusting party voters
Handing VP Kamala Harris the Democratic presidential nomination without having her compete in primaries is a throwback to less democratic ways of picking nominees, a political scientist says.The Conversation
Dr. Mastodonocologist
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •We're not going back!
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •Jeremy Jupiter Jones
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •Truth Sandwich 🥪🇺🇸😷
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •This is a truly bad take.
Harris is the only thing protecting democracy in America from fascism.
Do better.
#Election2024 #News #USpol #uspolitics
Dr. Andrea Hacker
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •orange
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •Andrew Prillaman
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •It's fascinating to me that someone who studies this topic could so fully and spectacularly misidentify the actual problem.
Delegates throwing their support behind Vice President Harris after the original candidate they were pledged to dropped out is not undemocratic.
And the party coalescing around the VP when there is no time to realistically hold a full primary isn't the problem either, especially when you consider the obvious support the VP is receiving.
The actual undemocratic problem is only identified once, almost in passing, in the last 3 sentences.
The reverence for incumbency and it's advantages caused the Democratic party to forgo a meaningful primary process, which might have revealed that the current president did not have the juice to do an incredibly stressful day job AND campaign for the opportunity to do it for another 4 years.
This could have been a good piece, but it just ended up being conservative concern trolling in an academic outfit.
daisE 🌈
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •https://www.digidaktik.de/research/USA-elections.pdf
There are so many absurd aspects you should *really* take into consideration.
Barney
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •This is absolutely astonishing. It's one of the stupidest things I've ever read on the subject of American politics, or any country's politics. I'm honestly stunned. Even in an age when journalistic incompetence is unfortunately widespread, this is a breathtaking piece of idiocy.
#Election2024 #News #USPolitics #Journalism
Megan
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •SpaceHistory, etc
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •Solitha
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •Wow. What a bad take. Less democratic, perhaps, but not undemocratic by any stretch of the imagination.
Sure hope you guys skip this one on the weekly quiz.
The Conversation U.S.
in reply to Solitha • • •Solitha
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •Tom Bergeron
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •Runyan50
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •