The 2012 primary season has been fascinating. When the Republican hopefuls say that this race is about more than a single presidential election, it is about the very definition of America, I don't think they're exaggerating. And I don't think they're wrong. The world is changing and challenging the very notion of who we are as a country, what the United States stands for from its inception, at its core, and into its future. We have been the inspiration for movements toward democracy all across the globe, a beacon of hope, the leader of the free world. These are big phrases and not easy to live up to. The question is, are they still true?

Let's focus first on the state of our democracy as iterated by the amazing primary race still unfolding before us. The fact that it is still unfolding, and the outcome still very much in question, is a healthy sign. It means that more Republicans will be able to weigh in on the debate. Some have been saying since early January that it was time to wrap it up, get the nominee in place so the real race could continue, even though only two or three state primaries had taken place and the vast majority of Republicans had not yet had an opportunity to place their votes. Forcing the issue then would have been an unhealthy sign. Let the debate continue.

Even after Super Tuesday (just a week away now, on March 6), just under half of the states' primaries will have taken place. California's does not occur until June 5. The very last state to weigh in will be Utah on June 26. Wouldn't it be nice for Republicans in California, Utah and the other states that hold primaries in June if their votes actually mattered?

The more extended process we're seeing so far is the result of some rule changes in how the Republican primaries and caucuses are being handled this year, the most important of which is a move, in some states, away from the winner-take-all approach and toward a proportional approach. Most analysts do see it as more democratic to award delegates proportionally rather than in an all-or-nothing manner.

The downside of a fully extended primary campaign is that no-one might win. "Winning" means getting 1,144 delegates. If enough division exists within the party, it's possible that no one candidate will earn enough delegates to win. What happens then? A brokered convention or, as Paul LePage, Governor of Maine, and others more viscerally put it, a floor fight. The prospect of a floor fight has the media foaming at the mouth, of course. It would make great television. But would it be good for our democracy? Much as I myself would enjoy watching that uncommon scenario unfold, I have to say no. A brokered convention opens up the nomination process to all kinds of wheeling and dealing, creating a very volatile scenario in which the will of the people may proudly prevail or may be tossed aside altogether. Which way it goes would be subject to the whims of those individuals empowered to vote at the convention. That would make "the will of the people" effectively subject to the whim of the delegates. Turning "the people" into subjects rather than citizens in any way would be bad, bad, bad for our democracy.

So how does a brokered convention work, anyway? First of all, it can't come up until at least the first round of voting has taken place at the convention. Most delegates arrive at the convention pledged to vote for specific candidates based on the will of the people of their states as expressed in the state primary outcomes. A few delegates, the so-called "unpledged delegates" are not committed to vote for any candidate in particular. Whether or not a particular delegate arrives at the convention committed to a particular candidate varies by state, so the picture is actually quite complex. If you want the details, Nate Silver provides a fairly exhaustive analysis of state rules and possible permutations of the results in this New York Times article, "The G.O.P.'s Fuzzy Delegate Math."

Assuming a delegate arrives at the convention committed to a particular candidate, that commitment lasts only through the first one or two rounds of convention voting. Usually, the first round is the only round, and the vote itself is a foregone conclusion because by the time the convention rolls around one candidate is ahead by a wide margin. As Silver points out in the article referenced above, this year there are many real scenarios in which a second or even third ballot may be required. In that case, the delegates who arrived as "pledged delegates" are effectively relieved of their original commitment and are free to vote for any candidate. That's when the wheeling and dealing begins, and where the "will of the people" could easily be left in the dust.

The most fair solution to the no-winner problem would be for the newly-freed delegates to be somehow guided by the will of the people in their home states. All delegates from Florida, for example, which is still a winner-take-all state, would arrive at the convention pledged to Romney because Romney won the Florida primary with 46% of the vote. Once free of that commitment, the Forida delegates as a group might take a look at the actual results in their state and agree to re-allocate themselves proportionally, giving Gingrich some delegates for winning 32% of the Florida vote, Santorum a smaller number for his 13% showing in Florida, and Ron Paul a handful for his 7%.

That solution, however, still may not provide a "winner" with 1,144 delegates. In fact, it might make the situation worse.

Another reasonably fair solution would be to eliminate all but the top two candidates based on the first round of convention voting. Delegates whose pledged candidate is not one of the remaining top two would then, in the next round, vote for the remaining candidate who did best in their home state, still remaining faithful as best they can to the will of the people in the home state. This solution would be sure to produce a winner on the second vote.

The disturbingly unfair solution being bantered around is to introduce an entirely new candidate into the mix. Someone who has not even been an option during the primary campaign. Someone who, in the opinion of people like Paul LePage, Governor of Maine, is a 'fresh face." According to LePage, as quoted by Alexander Burns in this Politico article, the current contenders are all damaged goods and none of them should be run against Obama in 2012. He and other Republicans hope for a stalemate at the convention and the introduction of a new option, a so-called "dark horse" candidate. If this sounds to you like a fairy tale scenario... Prince Charming riding in on his stallion to save the day, you're not far off the mark. That Prince Charming's stallion is white and LePage's horse is dark doesn't matter... that this is even a serious possibility should make your blood curdle.

Why would it be a bad thing for a dark horse candidate to come along and save the day at the Republican convention? The anti-democratic evils of that fairy tale scenario get right to the core of what America stands for, and will be the subject of my next post.

The Occupiers have gone home. The last mic check seems to have sounded. The Tea Partiers, on the other hand, are in full swing keeping pressure on their elected representatives to stick to their guns, and on the Republican party as a whole to stay close to its conservative traditions. There may be a revolution in the Republican party this year, but there will be no revolution in the United States of America.

One of the first things I remember learning about the French Revolution was the traditional description of France's pre-revolutionary social classes - 1% of France's pre-revolutionary population was made up of clergy, another 1% was formed by the nobility, and the other 98% was just "the rest." That struck me as so unfair when I was a teenager first learning about it. How could 98% of the population be lumped together like that? And how was it that they paid most of the taxes and did most of the work in France, but had little money to show for it and no political power? This, too, seemed so unfair. It still seems unfair.

Of course, political power is much more widely distributed in the US today than it was in France in 1789. It is also possible, though not common, to go from rags to riches in a way that was virtually inconceivable within the ancien regime. We do have a widening chasm, however, between the wealthy few and a stagnant multitude, and as the echoes of the Occupiers' calls for equity disappear into that chasm and fade into memory, I can't help but wonder - did they really give up that easily?

I don't think that they did.

The beauty of American democracy - one of its many beauties, I should say - is that it incentivizes attempts to make change by reform while providing strong disincentives for attempting to make change by revolution. Most people have just enough political power, just enough voice, just enough money, or perhaps just enough debt, to believe that the system could work for them. Many people have more than " just enough" and the system really does work for them. If you're a changemaker, you quickly find that even people with "just enough," although they may get angry, are unlikely to get angry enough to instigate a revolution. Those people want to hang onto whatever they have... their houses, their cars, their jobs, their tickets to the ball game, their 401Ks if they are lucky enough to have one. Revolutions are destructive of such trappings of stability. Even when Icelanders engaged in civil disobedience en masse by refusing to bail out their defaulted bankers, they did so within the context of a democratic vote. Icelanders like their mortgages as much as the next guy. Revolutions are not good for the stock market.


On the other hand, the incentives for participation are many. Perhaps the Occupiers have not given up so much as changed tactics. They communicated their message and they were heard. They succeeded in affecting the dialogue in Washington and that has carried over into the primaries. In January Mitt Romney, in an appearance on The Today Show, commented that the recent focus on the income gap - a major topic for the Occupiers and clearly a direct reference to them - is "about envy." Such comments are sure to keep the discussion echoing through the Presidential contest once the Republicans have chosen their candidate. Perhaps that same discussion will succeed in affecting the policies of the winner. Revolutions are exciting, but they are for people who are desparate, disempowered, disenfranchised, or perhaps just thoroughly disillusioned. People who have nothing to lose. People like "the rest" of the French population in 1789. Americans today have too much at stake to give up on our political system. Messy as it is, we need instead to call upon ourselves to do the hard work necessary to help it live up to its potential. I expect to see some Occupy protests later in the year as the election heats up, but I also expect to see some Occupiers occupying roles within the political campaigns.