As I stayed up Tuesday night to see the latest primary election results, I heard the same familiar arguments all over the media; "Why can't Hillary just drop out?" "The Democrats are tearing each other apart." "We need to move on to the general election."
Now I realize the importance of the Democrats going to their convention as a unified party, and I won't pretend to fully understand how the caucuses, pledged delegates and superdelegates work.
But I know that democracy functions because of an active and engaged public. Yet as the public meets its responsibility by turning out in the voting booths, political commentators complain that we're in a stalemate and aren't getting anywhere.
As I sat back and listened to same stories in the news, ("This is the deal breaker for Obama." "This is the game-changer for Hillary.") these are the same story narratives that we've been hearing since the first primaries all the way back in January. I began to wonder, "Isn't this what a democracy is supposed to be?"
Could this be the change that all three candidates talk about? Are we at the dawn of a new age of politics where both candidates and citizens recognize the importance of each vote?
Interviews of voters in Indiana and North Carolina were excited because they felt like their vote actually mattered. Each primary is turning out record numbers of voters of all ages.
But if this is the future, then why are we rushing it? I'm sure Democrats are anxious to take on John McCain and want to start to bring the party together. But why don't we relish in the fact that both candidates are receiving popular votes that dwarf previous candidates?
I don't want to oversimplify the issue too much. I realize there are just as many disadvantages to having two strong candidates as there are advantages. But by keeping this election going, we are living up to the ideal that America is a true democracy. Every citizen has a voice, and that voice matters.
In a country where more people vote for American Idol than they do for the president, isn't this closely contested primary election a good thing?
The election process is not a television show. We can't just skip ahead to season two and the general election.
We are witnessing a groundbreaking election. For the first time in history, a black man and a woman have a viable chance at becoming president. No matter who wins, this is the first election since John F. Kennedy that a sitting senator will become president of our nation.
So why rush through this exciting and new process? Each state and every citizen should have the right to experience a vigorous campaign and election process. We don't need to press fast forward. Unfortunately, there is no TiVo for Florida and Michigan, but that's another story.
Other than the superdelegates (and let's not go there), every person's vote matters the same. The size of the state and its election date don't matter, and that's how it should be. State after state, these candidates are campaigning and informing the public on why they should be elected. They're not just sitting back because they have the nomination in the bag. Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I think that is awesome.
While the campaign can get dirty, and there will be some after-effects of the primary election, let's embrace the fact that this whole country is participating in selecting our nation's next leader. I mean, that's better than the Supreme Court, right?
If nothing else, let's be thankful that the names Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are more recognizable than Paula Abdul, Randy Jackson and that mean British dude.
Andrew Smith is a junior journalism major. He can be reached at asmith39@umd.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!