Growing up and learning about democracy, I always felt lucky. Nothing sounded better to me than the freedom and equality that democracy offers and I felt proud to be a part of a political system that offers power to the people.
Well, it turns out that child-me was incredibly naive. This election season has proved to me that the U.S., and New York state in particular, could do with a revamping of its political system in order to actually represent voters.
The first issue is, of course, not being able to vote at all. The suppression of voters in New York state, and across the U.S., is a disgrace to our democratic system. From stories of voters previously registered Democrat being told last-minute that their affiliation had been changed — making them ineligible to vote in the primary — to technical issues with registration or changing party affiliation, to voters being purged from the roll, the handling of New York’s primary should be cause for alarm. These issues have disenfranchised voters and stopped voices of particular people from being heard. It shows a lack of care, and quite honestly, a lack of integrity.
It is silly to have primaries that are only open to voters of one party. It privileges candidates affiliated with the “establishment,” who usually are less appealing to independent voters. It should not be a surprise that Bernie Sanders was put at a disadvantage by New York state not having an open primary. Sanders does well with independents and could have possibly beaten Hillary Clinton had they, along with the registered yet purged voters, been included.
Furthermore, New York state expects voters to affiliate with a party six months before the primaries, which is too far in advance for independent voters to have predicted the momentum and viability of candidates like Sanders. It is ludicrous that about 3 million voters in New York state were denied their right to vote because of illogical bureaucracy. There is no genuine reason why unaffiliated voters should not be allowed to vote in the primaries.
Beyond voting restrictions, the Democratic party is also problematically involved with superdelegates — unelected delegates who are free to vote for any candidate during the party’s convention. These individuals have too much power and do not represent the wishes of the people. I emphasize this problem in the Democratic party because the Republican party’s superdelegates do not have nearly as much power.
The apparent massive difference in delegates between the two Democratic contestants is more indicative that Clinton, establishment favorite, has many superdelegates pledged to her, rather than Sanders having considerably less support from the American voter. Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz defended this system by saying, “unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots organizations.”
In other words, they protect the power of candidates like Clinton, who represent the party elite and big business, rather than regular voters. In fact, it does more than that; it stifles the voice of the people.
It is considered our civic duty to vote and our taxes pay for elections. Yet, when election season rolls around, too many Americans are not able to be represented. This is not democracy. Democracy is not an esoteric system of registration, strange rules and lack of information. Democracy is about representing the people. This article is not attempting to delegitimize Clinton’s win, but to point out that, regardless of the results and regardless of whether results would have changed without these problems, the people have not been represented. Surely, the U.S. and all the candidates should be appalled at this.
Anita Raychawdhuri is a senior majoring in English.