posted
I'm sure many of you are familier with the showdown between the states and the two parties over when the hold primary elections. The Democratic and Republican parties have mandated that no state may hold a primary before February 5th 2008 unless their name is Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina. In response, dozens of states have moved their primaries up to February 5th, creating a new HyperTuesday, the winner of which will carry the nomination, making the rest of them almost useless.
Two "rogue" states however have decided to buck the trend. Florida has moved their primary date to January 29th, and Michigan will move theirs to January 15th. Such a move would force Iowa up a week, which by New Hampshire constitutional law would push the Granite State into December.
The Democrats and Republicans in response, have threatened to remove all, and half (respectively) of the delegates from those two states of they do no move their primary dates. My full response to the issue can be found here, if you want to read it. But the short version is: This is ridiculous. First off, why punish the Democrats of Florida for something they have no control over? A Republican state legislature and a Republican governership made the decision and Democrats have to suffer? Why play into their hands?! It just pushes more voters towards voting for Republicans.
At first I wasn't so sure about my home state moving up the Primary so much. I thought it was a risky move, but after hearing the wrath that they are trying to bring down upon us, and I hear the Democratic candidates are circling and signing a pledge not to campaign here, I'm glad we did it. Maybe this will jumpstart a national campaign on why the hell those four states get to be first, and why the two parties can control who gets to go where, and why so many of us get left out in the cold, so say nothing of what this means for candidates who want to campaign, and will now need millions upon millions to have a chance on the new HyperTuesday.
I hope more states move their elections before February 5th. Hell, I hope EVERY state moves. I'd like to see them run an election where they only count the votes of four states.
Part of me wants to make the best of this situation by registering as a Republican (since my Democratic vote won't count) so I can vote for Ron Paul, but the stubborn side of me doesn't want to help the Democrats a single bit. I was excited about some of what the party looked like it had to offer, and still am a bit, but this greatly diminishes any enthusiasm I had for the party as a whole. I'm disappointed beyond words, and yet not wholly surprised.
What a bunch of hacks.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
It was an inevitable move by both parties considering the primary system we use. If they hadn't penalized the "rogue states," it would have acted as tacit encouragement for the already-ridiculous jockeying for the earliest primary dates. By putting their foot down, the parties are only doing what they have to do to prevent the entire situation from spiraling out of control. Besides, it's not as if Florida and the other states didn't have any warning: both parties have very strict rules in place, including descriptions of potential punishments for violators, that govern their respective primary processes.
We've discussed the problems with the current primary calendar before. I think you and I agree strongly in most, if not all, aspects of the issue. Certainly I think that allowing New Hampshire and Iowa (and ONLY those states) to dominate the primaries cycle after cycle is unhealthy at best, downright undemocratic at worst. But I think you're focusing your ire on the wrong target here. The problem, for once, is not the two parties, who are simply doing what they can to enforce some semblance of order in their respective primaries given a flawed system. That flawed system is the fundamental problem, and if we're going to avoid going through this same rigamarole in the future, we're going to have to start by revising that first.
In any case, I'm not sure why you're so specifically pissed at the Democrats. Sure, the Republicans only disenfranchised half of the state rather than the whole thing, but the expressed purpose is the same.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, that is indeed the root of the problem. Maybe this will draw attention to it.
And I'm more pissed at the Democrats because they're my party, an affiliation I'm a little less proud of now. I still think they're the best option for righting the wrongs in this country, but this feels like a betrayal to me, so I'm more pissed at them because I expect better of my own party than of the opposition.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
DC is still screwed. They can vote for the President (after far too long of not being able to), but they don't have representation in Congress that has power to act on the voice of their constituents.
posted
I think the parties are worried they are losing control over the elections if they can't run them in the ways they have established.
If a few key states didn't have such large influence over the primary process, the parties/candidates would have to spend a lot more money to get the same message penetration in the key markets. Every time it works out for them, spin and image win out over open, honest debate and consideration, and the voters of non-early states feel more and more disenfranchised as minor candidates drop out of races after not getting enough support in key advertisement-flooded states.
What can we do in the face of this messed-up system? Insist that the media has no right to declare what the "top-tier" candidates are. Do your own research on Google, Wikipedia, etc. Don't feel like your primary vote means nothing--use it to make a statement. Insist that the election be fair and open--if there are serious discrepancies in the election process, refuse to accept the results until they are demonstrated to be beyond reproof.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone introduced some interesting legislation a few weeks back that would essentially divide the nation into four regions, establish four primary dates, and rotate the regions around so that every four cycles, a region would have its primaries first
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I almost bumped this thread to vent about something else but decided it wasn't worth it, but, since it's here anyway.
Has anyone noticed that whenever CNN talks about the Primaries, they cover the four official early ones, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, and then inexplicably, Florida! Michigan isn't mentioned. We both have had our votes cut in half by the Republican party, and stripped entirely by the Democrats, and frankly BOTH states are now quite important to the Republican race, but we STILL don't get a mention? What the hell is up with that?
I've been going back and forth for the last week on whether or not I'd write in Obama's name when I go to vote on the 15th, since he's my guy, or whether I'm too pissed at him for not campaigning here and taking his name off the ballot. Similarly I was going to consider just voting for Hillary, but she took the same pledge.
I think I'm forced to vote for none of them and just not vote in the primary. I'd also briefly considered voting in the Republican primary. I'm not registered with either side, so I could, but I don't know what the point would be since I'm not okay with any of them.
I'm still on the fence.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get it; the nothing-before-Feb-5th rule is surely totally fair, in that there's no rule against everybody having their primary on Feb 5th. What could be fairer? If you don't like being last, just move to Feb 5th and you have the same as everyone else!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that the rule (currently) doesn't apply to Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lessee. The Republicans move up the primaries to get voters pissed off at the Democratic Party, so you have decided to work against Democratic candidates to reward the Republicans who have stripped you of your primary vote.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bingo! Democrats could have at least only stripped half the delegates and not looked like the party of douchebaggery, but Howard Dean is a flippin idiot.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the Democrats could not. The rules for delegate selection were already in place. Republicans took advantage of those rules* to disenfranchise Democratic primary voters.
Any changes to current delegate selection rules will be up to the discretion of delegates to the next national conventions. Michigan Democrats still have the choice between Clinton, Gravel, Kucinich, and Dodd. Meanwhile your apparent intention is to reward the Republicans for disenfranchising you.
* Just as they take advantage of campaign financing laws and a later RepublicanNationalConvention to choose whether or not to run a public matching-fund campaign, based on what the Democrats must have already declared to be the size of their campaign war chest and whether or not they will run a matching-fund campaign.
posted
Dean wasn't FORCED to strip Florida and Michigan of all their delegates, they could have stripped none, they could have given them a waiver.
quote:Meanwhile your apparent intention is to reward the Republicans for disenfranchising you.
It's not just about that. It's different in Michigan than Florida. In Florida they screwed the Dems over, but here a Democratic House and a Democratic governor voted to make these changes. It was a deliberate decision to make a stand, and I'm proud of that. I don't think the Democrats would have ever chosen to change the primary system from what it is without some sort of impetus for change.
But as much as I'm pissed at Howard Dean, I'm just as pissed at the candidates themselves for giving in and not taking a stand. They KNOW this process is wrong, but speaking out against it will hurt them in the very four states that the system is designed to make kingmakers.
The Republicans didn't disenfranchise me, the Democrats did, both their hierarchy and their candidates. My ambivilance over what to do and who to vote for is whether or not I think the greater good, that is, forgetting my qualms to look at the big picture, is more important than the here and now, and the immediate offense. And I'm still not sure.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
HowardDean did not make the rules. Your state legislature decided to break the rules. Wanna bet more Democrats opposed the change than Republicans?
Michelle McManus [Republican] State Senator, District 35: Introduced 2007 Senate Bill 624 (Revise presidential primary dates; require declaration of party ) to set January 29 as the date for the 2008 presidential primary in Michigan, and require presidential primary voters to declare their party in order to vote. Passed in the Senate (21 to 17) on August 22, 2007, to set January 15 as the date for the 2008 presidential primary
More to the point, Michigan legislators are reknowned for opposing environmental protection. In other words, natural allies of the RepublicanNationalCommittee.
posted
Sure aspectre, the republican party is the only one that tries to take every advantage the system allows. Those pure innocent democrats would never do such a thing. Both parties game the system as much as possible and both parties have arranged the system to benefit incumbents as much as possible.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your state legislature decided to break the rules.
The state legislature isn't "breaking" the rules. A private party has no power to create rules to bind the state legislature.
It's a sign of how ridiculous our primary system has become and how much our government has become beholden to the parties that anyone would even suggest accusing the state legislatures of breaking their rules.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not say that rules were laws. There are no laws against cheating at chess, but nonetheless breaking the rules is frowned upon. And if you break those rules in a ChessFederation match, you will be disqualified. On the other hand, the USSupremeCourt has clearly stated that the Law cannot be used to impose delegate selection rules upon political parties.
Nor did I suggest that Republicans are the only ones playing silly buggers: Before the current Republican gerrymander, the Democrats had Texas district lines so meandering that eg Dallas looked like wrestling octopusses even after separating districts by different coloring within the boundaries. Republican Governor Schwartznegger indicated pre-approval for a raise in California's minimum wage. And the Democratic legislature tried to draw a veto by attaching automatic yearly increases, cuz party hacks wanted to be able to scream "Schawartznegger hates workers!" at politically naive voters.
What I am saying is that what you are allowed to see through the mass media ain't necessarily a reflection of what actually occurred during the legislative process. So be careful in reaching conclusions. Don't let the silly buggers manipulate ya into acting against your own best interests.
quote: There are no laws against cheating at chess, but nonetheless breaking the rules is frowned upon. And if you break those rules in a ChessFederation match, you will be disqualified.
This isn't cheating. This is refusing to allow a private organization's rules to trump the laws of the people.
If the parties want these to be private affairs, then the state should get entirely out of it. The big parties are coddled and favored to a ridiculous extent.
quote:What I am saying is that what you are allowed to see through the mass media ain't necessarily a reflection of what actually occurred. So don't let the silly buggers manipulate ya into acting against your own best interests.
And what I'm saying is that your implication that those who don't agree with your take on this are somehow not seeing what actually occurred is wrong.
I know exactly what happened. And I hope more states tell the parties that they won't kowtow to their rules any more.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing there that tells the states they can't refuse to participate or support primaries.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are correct in the sense that the Florida and Michigan legislatures decided that their Democratic voters would not be allowed to participate in the presidential primaries. Be interesting when that hits the SupremeCourt.
posted
The states are under no obligation to participate in primaries. How the Republicans and Democrats choose to nominate their candidates is entirely a party affair. Over the years, state legislatures have simply chosen to accept the primary system and try to take advantage of it as best they can. They have even legislated around it. Iowa's constitution specifically states they must hold the first primary, that sort of legislation is absolute garbage.
I'm glad Michigan and Florida are bucking the system and I hope others join the party.
I've yet to hear anybody sincerely argue that the way things work now is fair, democratic, and efficient. I have heard Iowans and New Hampshirites argue that there is nothing unfair about them having atypical weight in who gets nominated for president, but that is to be expected, people rarely if ever willingly give up power.
Primaries are certainly within the rights granted by the constitution. If the parties want to discriminate against the delegates they themselves have created that's their business.
Primaries are a joke, go back to the system of 3 days of party conventions, people jockey for the nomination and on the 3rd day the party announces who they are nominating for president.
If the people would like more of a say in who gets nominated then create a regional rotational system for the primaries.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Primaries are a joke, go back to the system of 3 days of party conventions, people jockey for the nomination and on the 3rd day the party announces who they are nominating for president.
Primaries are a joke, but their power is real. I'm a little tickled. This is one of those times when bureaucracy, the rule of nobody, licks white people but good. If it makes you guys feel any better, you aren't going crazy, the Man's foot is on your neck. While there is no one Iowa shopkeeper or New Hampshire janitor plotting against you, but you are indeed being rogered.
posted
I don't think race is an issue here--unless it is the congenital self-destructive stupidity of the human race.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too often, too many stupid people get snippy even when we smart people are trying to be nice to you. There is no need for this. Does it really make you feel better to rail against us? Surely you cannot blame me for seeing things from my viewpoint.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: You are correct in the sense that the Florida and Michigan legislatures decided that their Democratic voters would not be allowed to participate in the presidential primaries. Be interesting when that hits the SupremeCourt.
It's against those same rules for the for ALLOWED early voting states to have their primaries where they do, but they are given a waiver. It's unequal enforcement of the rules and it's special treatment. I don't see how you could possibly prove otherwise.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Primaries are a joke, go back to the system of 3 days of party conventions, people jockey for the nomination and on the 3rd day the party announces who they are nominating for president.
Primaries are a joke, but their power is real. I'm a little tickled. This is one of those times when bureaucracy, the rule of nobody, licks white people but good. If it makes you guys feel any better, you aren't going crazy, the Man's foot is on your neck. While there is no one Iowa shopkeeper or New Hampshire janitor plotting against you, but you are indeed being rogered.
It's unfortunate that you feel a need to assign specious and spurious motives to every white person you come across.
And it's foolish of you to think my opinions are based on preserving some sort of status quo where, "the rich white man is in charge."
Primaries do make things a bit more democratic, but Iowa and New Hampshire are hardly bastions of African American concern. They are in fact uncharacteristically white. Beyond that they certainly do not represent the pulse of the nation by any stretch of the word. I don't think the primaries are going anywhere, but they certainly need to be revised and some sort of rotational/lottery system needs to be setup.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While he is out in space, it's only fair to note that Irami didn't make either of the charges you are replying to here. He didn't say the system is set up to oppress whites, or that your complaint is rooted in a desire to oppress blacks. What he said, as far as I can tell, is basically, "Huh. Screwed by the system. Now you know how that feels."
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus: I don't know what two charges YOU are talking about.
Irami said the system licks white people, and that tickles him. As if all white men are in cahoots together to keep control of the system, and that we all suffer together now. His statement is blatantly racist. Apparently he feels justified in the behavior as there is some sort of racist quota white people worked up during slavery and segregation, and he feels obligated to match it.
I said it's ridiculous that he automatically assumes I dislike the primary system because it interferes with the power of white people.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The primary system interferes with the power of Obama, too--I don't think he is even going to be on the ballot in Michigan, because things have gotten so screwed up in the Democratic primary here. (Actually, he and three other candidates filed affadavits with the Michigan Department of State requesting that their names be taken off the ballot of the January 15 primary.) Not that it matters, since Michigan will not have any of its delegates seated at the convention, anyway. I am still looking forward to an apocalyptic floor fight. And the rest of the nation will laugh upon the Democrats! With greatest derision!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the ballot will only have Clinton and Dodd on it in Michigan.
Most everyone believes that Michigan's delegates will end up being seated, but only after the eventual candidate demands it. At that point it's just window dressing though, it's the vote of the people that matters, and the vote of the people that's being taken away.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quick, easy question for you, aspectre: who has ultimate control over the rules and regulations of the DNC's primaries process?
Here's a hint: if you answer 'Republicans', you're wrong.
But honestly, if the Republicans can trick Democrats into screwing over their own freakin' primaries, then they deserve to win, because then the Democrats would be a pack of idiots.
I think it will be really ugly for awhile, and in the short-term, the status quo and its punitive response will stand. But if this keeps up, it will eventually be thrust into the ears of a largely apathetic public who will be unhappy about it, and say so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
