Florida vs. the DNC

Posted by Florida
August 25, 2007

Well, I live down here and I actually like the fact that the DNC is doing something (and applaud the RNC for already setting rules about what they will do if the primary gets pushed up). This rush to hold primaries as early as possible is unbelievably stupid and counter-productive.

Posted by Byron L Bowyer
August 25, 2007

I am very disturbed about so early a primary! Eleven months before the election, nine months prior to the party convention candidates are required to establish themselves before an electorate! This requires all potential candidates to announce themselves and commit to a platform. This is so much as to say that only the well positioned and most wealthy will have the opportunity to run for high office. What is required of the potential candidate will be politically and economically astronomical.
The Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary are fundamental in the electoral process! They together represent the pulse of the American electorate. To force upon potential candidates the economic burden of winning a primary of such a magnitude as that of Florida is am outrage!
So long as there is a "winner take all" policy we need be very careful of the manner in which these primaries are conducted!
I am a bit reactionary but I prefer the older system of proportionate voting! I long for the "Good old days" when tee planks of the party were forged on the convention floor, when the delegates cast their fist vote in accordance with proportion of the primary results and then the nominations got underway!
Perhaps this all mayhem and confusion. Perhaps? However if a one has legitimate qualification for office with scant connection and economic resource in a winner take all rule what is there to prevent California, New york and Texas from holding primaries before Feb 1?
Careful, very careful we need be! Great leaders are in our presence, we need them sorely today however concealed and perhaps not economically sustainable! The cost of a campaign is astronomical. To require that cost to sustained for a period of greater than eighteen months is absurd.
We are a nation in cissies, this is no time to play with political buffoonery! And let me add that I say this as one who is fully aware of the significance of political buffoonery in free and realistic democratic society.

Posted by Memo
August 25, 2007

Are the DNC and RNC also going after the other States who moved their primaries forward?

The real question is, who is in charge of making decisions for Florida? The Florida Legislature or the big two Political National Committees?

Posted by Dinj
August 25, 2007

Who is fooling who the comments i just reviewed are as bogus as the names used in the posts. Teh gret state of Florida has theright to look out or its interest. Why should we continue to allow such states as Iowa and New Hampshire dictate to the rest of the country who should be the nominees. For my part I hope Florida stands tast.

Posted by Mrs. Jesus
August 25, 2007

Florida will long be remembered for screwing up the 2000 Presidential election, which ultimately led to the appointment of the worst President in history. Get over your over-inflated ego, abide by the rules, and quit whining.

Posted by Byron L Bowyer
August 25, 2007

I am very disturbed about so early a primary! Eleven months before the election, nine months prior to the party convention candidates are required to establish themselves before an electorate! This requires all potential candidates to announce themselves and commit to a platform. This is so much as to say that only the well positioned and most wealthy will have the opportunity to run for high office. What is required of the potential candidate will be politically and economically astronomical.
The Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary are fundamental in the electoral process! They together represent the pulse of the American electorate. To force upon potential candidates the economic burden of winning a primary of such a magnitude as that of Florida is am outrage!
So long as there is a "winner take all" policy we need be very careful of the manner in which these primaries are conducted!
I am a bit reactionary but I prefer the older system of proportionate voting! I long for the "Good old days" when tee planks of the party were forged on the convention floor, when the delegates cast their fist vote in accordance with proportion of the primary results and then the nominations got underway!
Perhaps this all mayhem and confusion. Perhaps? However if a one has legitimate qualification for office with scant connection and economic resource in a winner take all rule what is there to prevent California, New york and Texas from holding primaries before Feb 1?
Careful, very careful we need be! Great leaders are in our presence, we need them sorely today however concealed and perhaps not economically sustainable! The cost of a campaign is astronomical. To require that cost to sustained for a period of greater than eighteen months is absurd.
We are a nation in cissies, this is no time to play with political buffoonery! And let me add that I say this as one who is fully aware of the significance of political buffoonery in free and realistic democratic society.

Posted by doug heard
August 25, 2007

The parties are not legal government organizations and are no have no more legal power than the Kawanis Club. For a club to tell a state what it can or can not do is stupid.

The dems by this move have just given the election to the repbs.

stupid, stupid

I think the early primarys are stupid but the DNC is 100 times more stupid.

Posted by Citizen Kang
August 25, 2007

Which of the candidates benefit from the earlier primary? I think it's fair to say the front runners benefit from having the primary earlier. The longer you wait the better chance of hearing something that would change your mind.

-- also, from paragraph 2:
"That could force Iowa and New Hampshire to move into 2007." ????

I don't like primary-creep either, but one state doing does not force another state to do it. If you mean, in order to stay the first primary, then yeah....

Posted by Charles
August 25, 2007

This is the end result of a failing system. For too long the US has been ruled by either the RNC, or the DNC. The State governments have had enough. Howard Dean is like the Dutch boy putting his finger in the hole of his villages dike.

You cannot defy the state capitals for long. The federal system demands that the states be heard. To suppress them is to invite civil war. As it has in the past.

The states have had enough, the Federal government is failing, and they are taking the reigns of power.

Posted by Riesz Fischer
August 25, 2007

This isn't about states rights, it's about the national parties making the rules for their own conventions. Duh. It's not the government.

If Florida moves it's primary up it will give a big advantage to the frontrunners-- Clinton and Guiliani. Why would either party want it's nominee chosen by the state where the people are so dumb they screwed up voting in two elections in a row?

Posted by Michael L. Wagner
August 26, 2007

Our eyes are riveted (?) on the hand waving the wand over the satin top hat--isn't our attention being diverted from what's in the other hand...?

First off, the US Commission on Civil Rights report titled Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election states: "... widespread voter disenfranchisement--not the dead-heat contest--was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. ... the Commission found a strong basis for concluding that violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act occured in Florida. The Commission calls upon the attorney general of the US to immediately begin the litigation process ..."

But the AG turned a blind eye to the Commission's report, instead futilely investigating the mere two dozen complaints directly addressed to the DOJ...

Immediately after the 2004 election, the Washington Post dismissed allegations of fraud as "conspiracy theories," and the NY Times declared: "There is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale."

In fact, nearly half the 6 million overseas ballots never arrived or arrived too late to vote--after the Pentagon (WHAT?) shut down the website used to file such registrations (WHAT?).

Furthermore, a consulting firm hired by the Repeublican National Committee to register voters in 6 key states was discovered shredding Dem. registrations...

In NM (decided by 6,000 votes) malfuncting machines failed to register 20,000 presidential votes.

According to the US Election Assistance Commission, nationwide as many as roughly one in one hundred ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment...

In Ohio, much, much more than enough Democratic voters to put Kerry in the White House were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted... The evidence suggests that more than 80,000 votes for Kerry were instead counted for Bush...

A report by Rep. Conyers, the ranking Dem. on the House Judiciary Committee, states, "The problems were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Sec. of State Blackwell." (Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio)

According to Rep. Conyers, "Blackwell made Katherine Harris look like a cupcake."

According to Blackwell, "Ohio set a gold standard for electoral fairness."

One avenue to protest the fundamental problems of past and present elections is to complain to the United Nations using the 1503 Procedure:

Search "Contact OHCHR"

E-mail: 1503@ohchr.org

Posted by Donna
August 26, 2007

As I understand it, the DNC rules for primary dates were set about a year ago and were agreed to by the state parties. Those rules included the rule about allowing four states to caucus or hold primaries in January and others no earlier than February.

I have no respect for Florida or Michigan for blatantly, at this late date, try to get away with breaking the rules they themselves negotiated and agreed to. There is no honor for either state in creating the confusion and upheaval that affects all candidates and Democrats across the country.

If the primary calendar or process needs fixing, then let that be done honorably, by negotiating new rules with all parties, not through this bullying rule breaking behavior.

Posted by tim
August 26, 2007

why do we need the rnc or the dnc? what happened to voting for the best person and most qualified for the job,so far weve had idiots and morons in office for quite a few years and it is time for a change.

Posted by the KOS KIDZ
August 26, 2007

WE MUST IMPEACH ALL IN FLORIDA WHO STAND IN OUR WAY!

Posted by Tony
August 26, 2007

^^^^^This is why I don't go the KOS website. Grow up.

Posted by THEO
August 26, 2007

Tony, you need a little more practice spotting Republican trolls.

Posted by the KOS KIDZ
August 26, 2007

THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL

THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL
THEO IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL

Posted by Anonymous
August 26, 2007

That is what I thought also.

Posted by Lies, Damned Lies, and the DNC
August 26, 2007

How a Florida democrap counts to 3:

"One, seven, lebenteen."

MAY THE BROWARD COUNTY CHAD CHURNING COMMENCE!

Posted by Impeach THIS
August 26, 2007

Proposed: All campaigning in the morning, Super National Primary at lunch, Presidential election in the afternoon, go to dinner by 6 PM.

1 day, no delays, pass the savings on to the customer.

Posted by gabriel christou
August 26, 2007

please visit for all the truth
www.gabrielchristou.blogspot.com

Posted by sean samis
August 26, 2007

Forgive me if I missed a prior comment on this perspective, but Karen missed a key element of this; re. "The big states remain frustrated by the outsized influence of Iowa and New Hampshire, and pressure will continue to make their voices louder in the selection of the party nominees."

What gives Iowa or New Hampshire "outsized influence"? THE MEDIA DOES. The Media (including the Blogs) pay far too much attention to these states; witness the stories on the recent Straw Poll in Ames, IA; a process that everyone says is meaningless, yet was widely reported and opined on.

If these little states are so meaningless, why do they get so much coverage? Because the Media Whores (redundant term) just gotta write about SOMETHING; straw polls, money raising, shoes. An now the Media blames the little states for wanting to go first.

In a sane world, the little states WOULD go first, serving as focus groups for the Big States. No candidate worth a damn would drop out because of the small states, they'd just retool and move on. But that would require the media to start reporting these campaigns sanely ...

Ah well, there's always something that's unfixable.

sean s.

Posted by Brautigan
August 26, 2007

As a Florida Democrat, I'm glad to see the DNC taking a hard line against this nonsense.

Our state Democratic party is a joke, and certainly not an organization whose influence I'd like to see expand on a national level.

Seriously, our Republican governor is a better Democrat than our spineless turd of a "Democratic" senator.

Posted by sab
August 26, 2007

Karen mentions an important point in the first paragraph of her post: "if Florida goes ahead with the Jan. 29 primary that has been approved by its GOP-controlled legislature..."

Rescheduling the Florida primary is an RNC ploy.

This Florida primary maneuver isn't an effort to give Florida input in selecting the nominees. It's an ingenious effort by the business/money wing of the Republican party to accomplish two goals. One is to disenfranchise their own grassroots (the cultural conservatives). The other is to make grassroots Democrats and also Independents angry at their own DNC.

Big state primaries benefit only those who can raise lots of money to run television ads, and also the big media companies that sell the ad time. Big state primaries are beauty contests, where voters react to advertising soundbites without ever getting a chance to know the candidates.

Posted by Fidel Castro
August 26, 2007

The political parties run washington, and it's all about the status quo... Why don't we have a lottery in which the states vote in a random order? There's no reason for new hampshire, south carolina, etc., to decide who the nominees are. Big states should be more important in the nomination process.

Posted by 5th Generation FL Native
August 26, 2007

Posted by Brautigan
August 26, 2007
As a Florida Democrat, I'm glad to see the DNC taking a hard line against this nonsense.

Our state Democratic party is a joke, and certainly not an organization whose influence I'd like to see expand on a national level.

Seriously, our Republican governor is a better Democrat than our spineless turd of a "Democratic" senator
__________________________________________________

Brautigan, you seem to miss the point that it was the GOP-led Florida legislature (signed by Charlie Crist) that changed the primary date, not the FL Demo Party. Yes, they may be feckless after years of spousal abuse by JEB! but I fail to see how this is their fault. And yes, Charlie is more progressive than Blue Dog Nelson, who certainly needs a real, progressive primarly challenger next time around.

Posted by the KOS KIDZ
August 26, 2007

IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH!
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH!
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH!
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH!
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH!

Posted by Anonymous
August 26, 2007

I can not think this is a good thing considering the RNC is not reacting as harshly and I worry that the repbulican party will have a talking point against the eventual democratic nominee if this is not resolved.

Posted by linda
August 26, 2007

It would seem that both politically and nationally that we all have better things to spend our time on than Florida wanting to get a bigger chunk of the Campaigns' advertising dollars.

I would hope that Florida DEMs would spend their energy working with the party and let the GOP act like a pack of starving pachyderms fighting over a peanut.

I have to agree with those above who stated that the 'influence of IA, NH' is a MSM fabrication. Personally, I also like the 'old way' of having platforms developed and then going for the nominees. Guess the experience of being a caucus goer that has gone on through the process has me seeing the 'caucus' as the FIRST step on a long road. That the there is more going on than nominating one person for one office.

The platform process won't even be started and the 'nominees' will be selected.

Maybe we would get better leadership if we went for the 'go' of grass roots-retail politics rather than the big 'show' produced by bobbleheaded suits.

Posted by MIS, Philadelphia
August 27, 2007

HOLY COW, Breaking News, Gonzales is resigning!!

NYT website

Posted by melville
August 27, 2007

Okay, here's a suggestion for improving the primaries system.

There should be two complete run-throughs of the states, the second in order opposite to the first. For example, if Iowa goes 1st, it would also go 100th; New Hampshire 2nd and 99th; and so on, till Montana (or whoever) goes 50th and 51st.

During the first run-through, the percentage of a state's delegates at stake should be equal to double its place in order minus one. Meaning, if Iowa goes 1st, only 1 percent of its delegates (1 x 2 - 1) should be at stake during the first run-through. The remainder (the other 99%) of Iowa's delegates will be at stake during the second run-through, in Iowa's case at the very end of primary season. New Hampshire, going second, would have 3% (2 x 2 - 1) of its delegates at stake during the first run-through. And so on, till Montana, going 50th, would have 99% of its delegates (50 x 2 - 1) at stake during the first run-through, immediately followed by a second primary to determine the remaining 1%.

Thus there would be a heavy penalty for a state's choosing to go early.

(There are various ways to incorporate D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico into this system.)

A state like Pennsylvania, whose primary currently falls about 41st in order (and consequently is meaningless), if it didn't move would have a first primary to choose 81% of its delegates, followed not too long afterward by a second primary to choose the remaining 19%. Might Pennsylvania not get campaign attention comparable to South Carolina, going 4th but having only 7% of its delegates at stake and not designating the remaining 93% till long after Pennsylvania had designated all of its delegates?

Under this system, states might in fact be motivated to move *back* in the calendar in order to make their primaries (both the first and the second) meaningful---but not so motivated as to reverse the present scramble-to-go-first into a scramble-to-go-last. My guess (and admittedly I'm not a game theorist) is that an equilibrium would obtain that would be a great improvement on the current system.

Posted by ivb
August 27, 2007

Melville, I think this is an interesting plan.

http://www.fairvote.org/?page=965

"The American Plan:The Graduated Random Presidential Primary System, or The American Plan(sometimes known as the California Plan), is designed to begin with contests in small-population states, where candidates do not need tens of millions of dollars in order to compete. A wide field of presidential hopefuls will be competitive in the early going. A "minor candidate's" surprise successes in the early rounds, based more on the merit of the message than on massive amounts of money, will tend to attract money from larger numbers of small contributors for the campaign to spend in later rounds of primaries.

Thus there should be more longevity of candidacy, and more credible challengers to the "front-runners." However, as the campaign proceeds, the aggregate value of contested states becomes successively larger, requiring the expenditure of larger amounts of money in order to campaign effectively. A gradual weeding-out process occurs, as less-successful candidates drop out of the race.

The goal is for the process to produce a clear winner in the end, but only after all voices have had a chance to be heard.

The system features a schedule consisting of ten intervals, generally of two weeks, during which randomly selected states may hold their primaries."

Posted by Gary Vincent
August 27, 2007

Yeah! And we'll send you more old people too! Have fun driving to the polls then...
http://www.crookedinc.com

Posted by W. Pitts
October 5, 2007

Florida Democrats will be well served to switch parties in Florida to vote for Ron Paul In the Primary

Ron Paul has a principled, consistent voting record that is not dictated by special interest in Washington, DC. Many promise in the election season: Ron Paul has always delivered. He stood resolute against our government’s interference overseas, in the economy, and in our personal lives. He is the champion of the Constitution. Ron Paul will bring the troops home now, stop the looting of Social Security, stop the $1 trillion, reducing our debt, helping veterans, children, and seniors, and cutting taxes, end forced health screening and vaccinations, he opposes WTO, NAFTA< CAFTA and the NAU, and fights for freedom to choose health care. He will protect our privacy and civil liberties, stop the national ID Card and oppose taxes on the internet.