Parties without people

It's likely that you didn't notice, but when (er, if) you voted in the May primary, you likely voted for delegates to the Republican and Democratic state conventions. This process of electing delegates who will mold the party at its state convention facilitates in the belief that political parties are "of" the people. But, this Saturday's Indiana State Democratic Party Convention in Indianapolis cast doubt on this theory. I decided to tune into the convention's webcast on Saturday, but after about 15 minutes, I could take no more.\nIt's not that I don't like Indiana Democrats. I'm sure they're fine Democrats, but the convention seemed to underline a national trend for both parties that is more than a little disturbing. The trend I speak of is one of conformity. At Saturday's convention (as well as at the Republican and Democratic national conventions), one could not find a fierce debate over the party's positions or even any contested elections for the four statewide ticket positions to be filled. What did this tell me? Not that Indiana Democrats are unanimous on issues, but rather that parties higher up defined the state party in a not-so smoke filled back room and left the average Hoosier out of the decision making process -- which doesn't sound very Democratic (or Republican) to me.\nFor example, after candidates were nominated (with lengthy "nominating" and "seconding" speeches), the "aye"s would be called for, but no one bothered to call for the "no"s. That's like saying that you are having an election with only one person on the ballot. It just doesn't work. The same can be said for both national party conventions. At these conventions, there is little battle over who will be the nominee of the party. Instead, nearly all of the delegates end up voting for the eventual winner. What's more, there is rarely any heated debate over the party's platform before it is approved, likely unanimously.\nNow, I know this all seems pretty trivial. The way the party defines itself is its own business. This is certainly true, but by allowing party executives to determine the shape of the party, ordinary Americans are left out of the process. They feel that their individual input is relatively insignificant, so there is relatively no reason to try to make a difference. Not only does this discourage average citizens from running for positions such as "delegate to the state convention," but it also decreases the control that we have over our own government. \nThis decrease in control stems from the fact that political parties have a huge effect in America's political system. After all, in 99.9 percent of elections, there are no more than two credible choices on the ballot -- the candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties. If nominations are merely given rubber stamp approval by the people as we saw at last weekend's Democratic convention, then many Americans have little choice at all. When we are forced into choosing between "the lesser of two evils," then there is a problem. The problem is that the party's leaders are deciding in lieu of the people deciding. This is what I find disturbing. And this is why something as irrelevant as a boring state or national party convention seems a little alarming at the same time. So, later this month when the Republicans have their state convention, I encourage them to have a little controversy and a lot of discussion, if for no other reason than because the people should define our government -- not the executive committee of a party.