Florida votes
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Florida votes
I just don't get this voting thing. I don't know why FL decided to move their voting date up. I don't know why moving it caused such issues with the democratic committee.
And now, here we are with votes casted that can't be counted?
What a mess.
I think it is to bad for the actual voters of Florida, they really didn't have a say, the decision was made though and should stay as it is.
Dana, you're from Florida. Here's a quote: "Florida Democrats absolutely must vote on Jan. 29,” Karen Thurman, chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party said in a press release last September. “We make this election matter. Not the D.N.C., not the delegates, not the candidates, but Florida Democrats like you and me voting together. We make it count.”
Similarly: Holding an early primary in Michigan would “give five million Michigan citizens a chance to cast their votes,” said Jennifer Granholm, the state’s Democratic governor. “A primary held in late February, after the nominations have been decided by earlier contests, would be an exercise in futility.”
column
As to why Florida and Michigan decided to move up their primaries, I suspect that some of it came from not wanting to have the candidates virtually selected by the time their primaries came around. Living in Pennsylvania, with our primary April 22nd, I can understand that to some extent. Some of it, I suspect, came from wanting the money that comes from a significant primary campaign to come to their states. You'll remember, a lot of states moved up their primaries for this year; it's just that Florida and Michigan moved them up before the date set by the rules of both parties.
As to why it caused issues, that's because the national Democratic Party, with representatives from every state, made rules. The rules said that no primary should other than New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada, should be held before February 5th, and that if state Democratic parties held their primaries earlier, their delegates would not be seated. (The Republican party had the same rule, but the penalty was that only one-half of the delegates would be seated.)
As for do-overs, there are several issues. One is the cost - estimated to be up to $25 million for Florida. Another is that each state's legislature would have to approve holding a new primary. If the Republicans control the legislature in either state, they have absolutely no interest in helping the Democratic party with this dilemma. And there is a deadline, some time in June.
Another issue is that in Florida, people who are registered Democrat did vote in the primary on the Republican primary ballot. Anyone who already voted in the Florida primary would not be allowed to vote in any do-over primary.
There are 366 delegates/votes at stake. That's important, with Obama having a lead of about 170 right now and many of the "super delegates" not having publicly expressed their intentions.
There are some options. The matter can be taken to the Rules Committee. If they don't like the decision there, it can be taken to the Credentials Committee. And, it can result in a huge, well-televised and highly contentious floor fight.
I have never seen a campaign as long as this one, and I remember as far back as the Eisenhower/Stevenson election. I think the campaign began, more or less, some time in mid 2006, certainly by late 2006. I think that's absurd. I think it means getting greater amounts of campaign contributions for campaign expenses, and the strings that can come with those contributions. I think it gives more time for those who want to to try to dig into the past 50 years of every candidate's life to throw up anything, no matter how innocuous or how long ago, that can be given a negative twist. And I think it distracts from a lot of really important issues and events that have occurred in the past 18 months or so.
I've seen thoughtful suggestions for revisions to our primary election system. The one I think makes the most sense is to divide the country into four primary dates, putting states into each primary not by geography, but by putting together groups of large and small states from around the country in each group, to keep each group diverse, and to hold four primaries approximately six weeks to two months apart, beginning in January, so they'd be done by the end of August and conventions held in September. I agree that in most primary years, New Hampshire and Iowa pretty much set the trend, and I've never liked that. While they are both great states, neither is particularly representative of the U.S. as a whole, certainly not statistically.
I very much agree, this is a mess. As a Democrat, I really don't want to see a contentious and nasty floor fight on evening television for several days - plus all the radio commentary that would go with it.
I must say, I never thought my April 22nd vote in Pennsylvania's primary would have a chance of making a difference. And before anyone asks, I'm still undecided.
In my opinion, there should not be any do overs. It was known at the time they changed it that they wouldn't count. Nothing was a surprise. It was done even though the rules of both parties were clearly stated!!
I would like it explained to me why so much money was wasted on a vote that would never count. Why bother to do it? There are so many other things in the world that the money could have been used for if it was just going to be wasted like that. That is our government in action for ya! Waste the money on an election that won't count, then I am sure more money will be wasted fighting to have another vote.........That is just insane!
Well, Vicki, certainly the first primaries in Florida and Michigan were paid for by the states, but if those states are anything like mine, there were a lot of other things on the ballot, including state office primaries. But one thing is clear, neither Florida nor Michigan will use taxpayer dollars to pay for any do-overs. If they happen, which seems less and less likely, the money will come from the national party and the state party, meaning getting more "soft money" from contributors.
Yes, I am from FL. What is totally unfair is that from the get go, FL voters had their constitutional rights to have their vote count. Forget the party....what about the individual? Basically our rights were stripped.
And NO i dont want a do over
Well, Dana, I think it is sort of an apples and oranges situation. You have a constitutional right to have your vote counted when you are actually electing someone to an office. I'm not sure if there is any constitutional right connected with primary elections, because those are to choose the persons who will be the candidates for office. I think it is an interesting constitutional question, and I am trying to think of a lawyer I can ask who might have some insight. I'll try to do a little research on that.
I did a little research, and primary elections aren't in the Constitution and hence are not a Constitutional issue. From 1832 to the early 1900s, candidates from each party were selected at national conventions, with the convention delegates being selected at state conventions (usually consisting of party leaders, hacks, etc.). Before 1832, each party would elect one candidate, and, if I recall my history lessons, the person who got the most votes was elected President and the runner up was Vice President, at least in some early elections. The first primary election was held in 1910 in Oregon, making Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary in which the delegates to the National Convention were required to support the winner of the primary at the convention. By 1920 there were 20 states with primaries, but some went back to the convention system and from 1936 to 1968, 13 or 14 states used primary elections.
According to Wikipedia: "The impetus for national adoption of the binding primary election was the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention (which I vividly remember, watching and weeping). Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the nomination despite primary victories and other shows of support for Senator Eugene McCarthy, running against Humphrey on a strong anti-Vietnam War platform. After this, a Democratic National Committee-commissioned panel led by Senator George McGovern recommended that states adopt new rules to assure wider participation. A large number of states, faced with the need to conform to more detailed rules for the selection of national delegates, chose a presidential primary as an easier way to come into compliance with the new national Democratic Party rules. The result was that many more future delegates would be selected by a state presidential primary. The Republicans also adopted many more state presidential primaries.
Given this history, I doubt very much any Constitutional right is involved. If you are upset - and clearly you are and, in my opinion, you have a right to be - the people who can change things for the next presidential primary in your state are your state Democratic party, your state legislature, and the national Democratic party. But it's not a Constitutional issue.
Wow, thanks for the education! I have never known anything of what you just said. LOL, and to be honest, I will need to read this about 10 more times to understand WHAT you just said. This type of stuff is not where my knowledge lies. I get so lost.
That is really interesting that our vote in primary isn't in our rights. I guess it is just a perk if you choose to use it.Hmm.
I think what it boils down to, Dana, is that the primary votes are to select each party's nominee for various offices. It's done that way for some historical reasons, and because the parties have decided, by and large, that this is an efficient way to do it. Remember, some states, Iowa among them, use caucuses instead of primary elections to select their candidates, so even now there is no single way in which it is done. I do know that in Pennsylvania the primary ballot will often have something that is on it like approval of a school budget or something that is actually a state or municipal issue, not a political party issue, but it is still essentially something done to select party candidates.
It is your right, in that if you are a registered voter you can vote in the primary -- and, in closed primary states like mine, are registered to a party which has candidates on the primary ballot, in which case, if you are registered to that party, you can vote on that party's primary ballot. That is, I'm registered as a Democrat, and I can only vote on the Democratic party's primary ballot in Pennsylvania. Some states don't have closed primaries and in those states (I think Florida is one) you can vote in the primary if you are a registered voter and can vote on either party's ballot.
I think what it boils down to is that it is your right, but it's not a Constitutional right because the primaries don't come under the Constitution. If a state decided to switch from the primary system to the caucus system, that would be a state issue. And, if a state decided that it wasn't going to run the parties' political method of choosing their candidates, that would probably be Constitutionally legal. It would have a lot of political fallout and would be extremely unlikely, but I suspect there is no legal reason it couldn't be done unless a state embedded the matter of primary elections in its Constitution (unlikely).
But essentially, primary elections, in the states where they are held, are a function of the political parties that is run by each state, at taxpayer expense. Why states fund what is essentially a political party function is something I don't know, and the more I think about it the more I think that is a good question.
You have to have lived through politics before the late 1960s (as I did) to understand it. State conventions mostly picked state and national candidates up to the 1968 election, even though many states did hold primary elections before then. And the delegates to the state conventions were mostly elected politicians and party officials, meeting "behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms". Often the delegates actually elected in primaries for a specific candidate weren't "bound" by party rules to vote for the candidate whose delegate they were according to the primary election. (Remember, when you push the button or put an X by a particular candidate's name in a primary election, you are actually casting your vote for a delegate who is bound to that candidate for a certain number of rounds of votes at the party convention - you're not actually "electing" a nominee.)
That was the problem at the 1968 Democratic convention - McGovern had won a lot of primaries because Democrats were voting against, first Lyndon Johnson, and second, his vice-president, Hubert Humphrey, because of the Viet Nam war. On the floor of the convention, many maneuvers took place to effectively nullify the primary elections, including political strong-arming of delegates, to throw the nomination to Humphrey, and it was all televised, including Chicago mayor Dick Daley swearing and giving the finger to a TV reporter. It was the best example of Chicago politics I've ever seen (I grew up in Chicago, under Dick Daley for much of that time). And, of course, thousands of anti-war demonstrators were arrested and many had their heads beaten (including reporters), also on national TV. Plus the arrest of the group known as the Chicago 7 - who were all later acquitted on First Amendment grounds.
That was such a public fiasco that the parties decided to have binding primaries, to prevent such a public battle ever happening again - hence our present systems. Unfortunately, I am anticipating another nasty, well televised, Democratic convention this year, because I don't think either candidate is going to go in with enough delegates to win the nomination on the first, second or third ballot. And then the fun will begin and people work to persuade delegates to switch their votes.
Interestingly, the whole process has just put the smoke-filled room into the process earlier. In my state, at least, the candidates who actually get on the primary ballot are, essentially, picked by the party officials, committeemen and women, etc. Then the party sends its workers out to get enough signatures on petitions to meet the state rules for who gets on a primary ballot (it's done by number of signatures vs. the number of people who voted in some prior election). The Democratic and Republican candidates selected in those meetings have no problem getting enough signatures to be on the ballot - the committeemen and women just go up and down the blocks in their precincts. But candidates who don't get the party's approval, and third party candidates such as Nader or a Liberterian candidate, have to send volunteer workers out into the streets trying to persuade people to sign their nominating petitions (and hope the signer is (a) a registered voter in that county and (b) signs their real name instead of a false name to mess things up). Then court battles begin, with one candidate challenging the number and validity of signatures on another candidate's nominating petition. Just yesterday a Pennsylvania state court threw a candidate off the ballot in a Philadelphia district on the basis of the nominating petition, leaving only one candidate on that party's ballot in that particular voting area. If I remember correctly, Nader was thrown off the primary ballot in Pennsylvania 4 years ago because the court ruled there weren't enough valid signatures on his nominating petitions. It's kind of fun to watch them bring in voter rolls, hand-writing experts, and people who testify "no, I didn't sign that petition even though that's my name". So having actual binding primary elections just moves the dirty politics a bit further down and earlier on in the political process.
|
Members
