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."

Comments

party problem

[drDugan]

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.

Re:party problem

[MBCook]

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.

Re:party problem

[WreathOfBarbs]

The Senate was not always elected by the popular vote. It was intended as a check and balance for the House of Representatives and for Federal power overall. Prior to the 17th amendment Senators were appointed by thier state. This allowed the State interests to be represented as well as the people, and because the States don't like being controlled it provided an effective check on Federal power and didn't encourage such blind adherence to the party line. It may have seemed a good idea at the time to quell the infighting in the state legislatures, but the long term consequences have been disastrous, imparting far too much power to the Federal government. Thus making it easier to influence by lobbyists since both houses are popularly elected and thus need to pander to the lobbyists for campaign funds.

Logical

[Stanistani]

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.

Happened before...

[Notquitecajun]

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?

[Grashnak]

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.

The reason they're doing this

[wiredog]

Is laid out pretty well in Broder's piece today in the Washington Post.

It doesn't matter whether it's binding or not.

[GrnArmadillo]

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.

I've Never Understood The Primaries

[Dredd13]

Why does anyone think that primaries must be binding? Why do states feel they get to regulate primaries at all?

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.

Re:Not going to happen.

[Moofie]

"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.