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."
The older I get, and the more I learn about US politics, the more the picture becomes clear:
The primary problem is the parties.
The USA has 3 major control structures in the culture: businesses, religions, and government. Each entity within these categories are major hierarchies with internal rules, norm, and oversight (when it works).
The two prevailing political parties are not really in any of these 3 categories, but are (arguably) the most influential and powerful organizations in the society. They literally control the actions and votes of public, elected officials, under threat of reduced support. Now it would seem that they are brazenly making explicit the ability to alter the election process. This level of power in the society is far beyond any other organization.
Having private organizations, without oversight that can manipulate and control elected officials is a very bad thing, and mostly what screws the "democracy" ideals that this country was designed to protect and promulgate. At this point USA has 2 socially-endorsed groups that enforce (as much as they can) one particular world-view onto member politicians with the intent of collecting revenue and support(votes). These two groups are warring over attention of the population but NEITHER ONE really is looking out for preserving the democratic ideals. It is like a poker game, all either one has to do is beat the other party to win, not really play a great game (represent the people). Both parties just private organizations looking to expand their power to promote their view of how the society should be structured.
People don't need them both the voters or (more importantly) the elected officials.
Imagine a world where your senator voted for what your STATE really wanted, and not for what their party line said they should. Imagine a president who made decisions for what was really best for the county, and not for how to get his party's line promoted.
This is, of course, part of the Democracy Reform Movement, popular in both major parties, which will culminate in all elections being 'nonbinding.' It's much tidier that way.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
I, for one, welcome our new democrat overlords.
Okay, now that I'm done with that, why would the democrats even consider this? It may be just a primary... but it's usually the most dedicated voters who turn out for primaries. Alienating them would not be a good thing for their party.
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.
Is it too late to declare the 2000 and 2004 elections to be non-binding? Maybe we could set up a new system by which the votes of individual Americans are considered to be "suggestions" rather than actual statements of desire. Heck, lets just go back to the more traditional system of watery tarts distributing scimitars.
Life needs more saving throws.
That's not going to happen because this is POLITICS.
Human beings are not wired that way. They form groups. The group can be based upon ANYTHING.
And once you start a group, by definition, everyone else is part of "them".
You do what you can to help your group and hamper "them".
Democrats vote for YOU!
Hmm...emphasis is wrong...
Democrats vote FOR you!
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Is laid out pretty well in Broder's piece today in the Washington Post.
Best Slashdot Co
The Democrats counted the votes enough times in 2000 to hold them over!
Speaking of 2000, what happened to all that "every vote must be counted" line they kept giving? I can't even say that they only want Democratic votes counted because it looks like they are the only ones being thrown out, and it's Democrats doing it!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
RTFA
The party rules are that a state can't hold the primary before February 5. Florida is going to break that rule and the Democrats have to figure out what the penalty should be.
I like the idea of making the primaries go one at a time in order from most to least % (of total elegable pop, not just regestered voters) turnout in the last election
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.
It's easy to poke fun at the Democrats on this (and I'm not claiming that's what you're doing), but the facts are much more prosaic. When the Republican controlled Florida state legislature and the Republican Florida governor first considered moving the primaries up to make their state more relevant (and, hence, other states less relevant) there was talk that both the RNC and the DNC might not support this, but that the RNC probably would feel compelled to since it was done primarily by Republicans.
Now that it appears to have moved beyond the consideration phase, the Democratic party is considering not having it count. IIRC, there is precedence for this. Also, for the record, (well) before the Florida legislature started considering this, both the RNC and DNC had a policy against such an early primary. The RNC is bending (i.e., breaking) that policy (I assume), and the DNC has not yet said if they will or not. For the record, if it was a Democratic legislature instead of a Republican legislature, I am quite certain that all roles would be reversed (including the early waffling).
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The government and people of the State of Florida are not giving up the pretense of anything. The party bosses of the Democratic (big D) party in Florida has given up any pretense of caring about democratic (little d) issues.
This is all about control. Florida (like many states) is trying to move the primaries earlier so that Florida has a larger say in who the nominees for each party are. Of course its an arms race no state can win 'cause other states will simply move it even earlier. The entire attempt is foolish, but not anti-democratic.
The party bosses (of both parties) don't want a "new" guy they can't control to get early buzz from a primary without other coverage. They want it to be "non-binding" so the party power owners can make their deals and get their guy.
The Democratic Party is a private organization. (The same for any political party, it's not just the DNC) It should be up to them to determine -- by their own means and at their own expense -- who their candidate is that they want to promote in the General Election.
Why does the state fund an election cycle which benefits nobody but the political parties?
Why should the state be able to, as it does in many states, tell the Democratic party that "Your sworn enemies, the Republicans, get to vote in determining who you will put up against them in the election"?
Political parties should be able to determine their candidate in whatever fashion they so choose -- intraparty elections, interparty elections, closed-door back-room top-secret stategy-meeting decisions, randomly chosen powerball winner, whatever they want . The only people who really should have any say are the members of the political party in question (and even then, in accordance with their own organization charter, etc., etc.)
But certainly this is not a matter that the government should be involved in at all.
And here is the data for 2004.
Sig cannot be found.
and as a taxpayer, I strongly object to spending any public money on primaries. They are not in any way "elections," they only server to reduce the choices we have. If the parties don't want to run half-a-dozen candidates in a real election, let them figure out how to reduce that number, by private means.
Furthermore, I think the party system is all a big scam on the public. The major parties two sides of the same coin. Where there are differences, they are minor when viewed in context, and are artificially inflated to make the electorate perceive that they have some kind of choice.
The major parties agree very completely, and work quite effectively together, on the one thing that matters most to both of them - maintaining and building power and authority over ordinary citizens.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Primaries are run by the parties, they're free to make up any rules they want.
[Insert pithy quote here]
I'm honestly trying to figure out if your comment is satirical or not. The Supreme Court didn't in any way decide Bush won, they decided that Gore counting the votes more then 2 extra times was wasting everyone's time and after 3 confirmations of Bush winning Florida, to stick with that.
As for the real topic...
THIS IS A PRIMARY. The different parties are companies, they are run like such and completely exist as such. The democrat party can chose whatever it wants to do for how it will decide it's candidate, the primary is a party voting, not a government one. If they decided it would be best to play beer pong until there was only one candidate left standing, that would be an equally valid way of doing it vs the current convention.
If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
The Florida legislature is Republican controlled and this move of the primary date happened after the DNC posted their planning calendar for 2008. Florida is almost 50/50 Rep/Dem voters and this is a good way to block the Democrat representation.
I drank what? -- Socrates
California (heavily Democratic controlled) also foolishly moved their primary earlier.
The real point is not the idiocy of moving the primary, but that the powers in the parties themselves don't like States to do that and so the parties themselves are talking about making more primaries "advisory". People think they will have a voice in choosing a nominee, but the parties themselves will do the choosing.
Pay attention to how many "at large" voting delegates go to each parties convention who are NOT chosen by a popular vote of the people. Most people don't even know this happens yet they are the swing votes who actually choose the nominee.
Of course, I'm not sure why the State (i.e. the public) must have anything to do with the primaries anyway? Why do the people PAY to have the Republicans and Democrats pick their candidates? This is not a Constitutionally mandated election. This is a way for large parties to use the machinery of the people and have the people pay for it.
Each party should figure out who their nominee is how ever they want (I figure an election by their members is smartest, but it's their party) and whomever they choose would stand in the "real" election.
It's in everyone's interest to have a system where candidates who don't have a bazillion dollars from the get go have a chance. Such a system only tests the ability of candidates who can raise a lot of money up front. A system where the primary starts in smaller states allows candidates who might be stronger in the long run to have a chance by getting started with less money and more "sweat equity". It's not perfect of course because it does give Iowa and NH more clout than is reasonable.
However it's in any individual state's interest to moveits primary ahead.
Flordia is a large state; placing its primary shortly after NH tilts the game in favor of early money raising. NH makes or breaks many candidates, but if FL is right after NH then the election is over for many candidates before a single vote is cast.
Personally, I think the primaries should be structured so that (1) relatively unknown candidates with relatively small war chests have a chance and (2) they produce competitive races up until the last primary vote is cast.
Think of it as a design problem. How would you design a system that meets those criteria?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Which is exactly the problem. The idea the States can be "allowed " to do something by a political party is laughable.
The major parties entered a devils agreement with the States. The State agreed to pay for the whole thing in exchange for their making rules. Rules like "Open Primaries" where people from one party could legally vote in another parties primary. Or when the date of the primary is. The parties have allowed the government to have a large voice in who they run for office. Huge conflict of interest!
If the party wants the money (i.e. to have the State pay millions to run the primary election) the party has to get used to losing control of their own process.
The whole idea is bad for the country. The parties should make their own arrangements and pay for the primary themselves. This would wholly remove the party nominating process from State control.