Slashdot Mirror


For Democrats, Florida Primary May Not Count

be951 writes "Democratic party leaders are seriously considering making the Florida primary 'nonbinding', meaning they could ignore the actual vote by Florida democrats and allow party leaders to decide how Florida's more than 200 delegates are divided up among the candidates. 'I think it's much higher than 50-50 that we will make Jan. 29 a nonbinding' election, said Jon Ausman, a veteran Democratic organizer in Tallahassee and member of the Democratic National Committee. This is in response to Florida's move to an earlier presidential preference primary, which scrambled the primary calendar carefully worked out by the two national parties."

4 of 363 comments (clear)

  1. Happened before... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Moving the primary to such an earlier date was tried in the '99 Republican primary in Louisiana, and it didn't take so well (partially because the party chair was such a nutcase). Primaries ARE moving up, though, and I would like to see a few early ones spread more around the country than just New Hampshire and Iowa. The national parties (and candidates) don't like to play along...because of the travel that it entails, I suppose.

    Other than that, I don't mind the primary system all that much in the US. Each state has its own particular "flavor" of primaries, and they work rather well.

    They aren't the problem...it's the money involved that doesn't give lower-tier candidates (who occasionally make sense) a chance, but I don't want my tax money to go to one of them for their campaign.

  2. It doesn't matter whether it's binding or not. by GrnArmadillo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Iowa caucuses are non-binding, and that didn't prevent them from deciding the 2004 Democratic nomination. The 24/7 news media is so desperate for media that they will over-play any event, no matter how insignificant it's intended to be. You didn't hear that John Kerry won a non-binding caucus that, due to its format (no secret ballots, and caucus-goers need to stay at the events for far longer than it takes to cast a ballot) might not even reflect the will of the Democrats of Iowa, much less the Nation. You heard that John Kerry was a winner, John Edwards was a cute number 2, and Howard Dean was bleeping nuts. You heard this for a solid week every time you turned on a TV, opened a newspaper, or listened to the radio. Once they'd finished carpet bombing America with the results to the point where everyone knew what had happened a few day later, they spent the rest of the week with talking head after talking head dissecting WHY John Kerry was a winner, John Edwards was a cute number 2, and Howard Dean was bleeping nuts. Even their coverage of what the candidates were doing in New Hampshire introduced Kerry as the Iowa winner, Edwards as the young attractive runner up, and Crazy Howard Dean. Wesley Clark chose to ignore Iowa, and it's unclear if anyone even knew he was in the race a week later. No grassroots campaign, no amount of phone calls, ad purchases, emails, or even door to door visits can equal the impact this had on undecided voters, and what do you know, a week later New Hampshire believed that John Kerry was a winner, John Edwards was a cute number 2, and Howard Dean was bleeping nuts.

    The Florida Dems can make the contest non-binding, but the point is moot if coverage of their primary decides the outcome in all the binding contests that happen after the Florida Primary. Unless, of course, Iowa 2008 has already decided the race by then.

  3. Re:party problem by MBCook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The older I get, the more I agree, and the more I think campaign finance along the lines of what other countries have is the solution.

    Parties apply, and get $x million per candidate (or however it's decided). This money comes out of the treasury, paid by taxes. No private donation. When the Republicans (me), the Democrats (others), and the Greens and such have to play on a level field, we'll get some real competition.

    Of course, as you can guess, neither party is going to vote for this. We'd need to make this a referendum or some such.

    So this idea goes with Steve Forbes' tax plan and many others that are great ideas that congress won't vote for because they have such a vested interest in the status quo.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  4. Re:Not going to happen. by Moofie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "yet the average Slashdotter thinks"

    What the hell is an "average Slashdotter", and who the hell are you to presume what anybody else thinks about anything? You seem to want there to be a hive mind of "average Slashdotters" with you as the voice of reason.

    Guess what, Sparky. You ain't.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!