MaryBeth asks an excellent question about our extremely legitimate primary process, which I will fair use most of:
[L]et's look at the Delegate Selection Rules of the DNC :
No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.
The first Tuesday in February was the 5th, so that 22 days prior would be January 14th. Thus, the Nevada caucuses could be held no earlier than the 19th, the New Hampshire primary could be held no earlier than January 22nd, and so on. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all moved their caucuses in violation of DNC rules, and yet suffered no penalty, not even the standard 1/2 reduction in delegates. So why were Michigan and Florida afforded such draconian treatment?
My goodness, I can't imagine. Readers?
I mean, we're supposed to want every vote to count, right? Especially in Florida?
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
I'm sure it had nothing to do with sabotaging Clinton
No, of course, not. Sure, Clinton seemed a lock in both states and the DNC probably never imagined the primary battle would last this long, endangering their GE chances, but I'm certain it had nothing to do with kneecapping Clinton to rig the game in favor of Obama (or Edwards?).
not Edwards--it was DNC micromanaging that failed
--they thought they had it all set, schedulewise, and FL/MI were the first to mess it up.
head-spinning language there--
I think the DNC is regretting the tough line they took back then--they jumped on FL (which was done by their state GOP anyway) and MI bec they didn't messed up the order they wanted --which was IA/NH/NV/SC, then Super Tuesday, then whenever anyone wanted as long as it was after that.
Dean seems really impotent now--was that part of someone's plan?
FL was totally robbed
The pushed-up primary was the fault of the state GOP; the local Democrats had no choice but to go ahead with it.
that's why FL votes have to count--it wasn't
disobedience or anything at all--and FL's been screwed enough for this century already.
To not count FL votes is abhorrent to all Dems since 2000.
To not count FL votes is abhorrent to all Dems since 2000
Seriously, how Dean, Obama & Co. can fail to comprehend that is beyond me.
It makes a mockery of all that you have the power rhetoric.
yup--DNC was throwing weight around, & not thinking
at all, i think.
But see, we have to disenfranchise FL...
... to prevent somebody who will say or do anything from winning.
See? It's just TOR. Easy peasey!
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
or the 50% penalty delagate rule
but never mind that.
glad to see being "units of electoral value defined by an arbirary system composed by media and Village
bobbleheads which may be revalued at any time" doesn't work for you either. or, "democracy, let's try it!" yo.
really interesting thing about how undemocratic our govt really
is (he's talking about supers) --- http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/16...
"... Anti-democratic elements are everywhere in our political system. The presidential veto is undemocratic. The rules governing filibusters and the closing off of debate are undemocratic. The procedural devices by means of which floor leaders or committee chairmen can prevent issues from coming to a vote are undemocratic. The fact that Rhode Island and California have two senators each is undemocratic. The appointment of senators by governors in the wake of a death or a resignation is undemocratic. The presidential line of succession is undemocratic. The fact that a vice president who has not been elected to the senate presides over it and can cast a deciding vote is undemocratic. Judicial review – the practice by which the Supreme Court invalidates laws passed by the people’s representatives – is undemocratic. ..."
Your point is well made, CD...
... and I can chalk up a certain degree of anti-Democracy to the wisdom of the founders. I mean, if 50.5% of the American people decided that gay people should be rounded up and tortured, I'm not sure that would be good. In other words, the Bill of Rights is undemocratic.
However, I'm not sure that accepting some undemocratic features means that in principle I have to accept this undemocratic feature. As you put it:
In fact, it sucks. Surely, accepting the Bill of Rights doesn't mean that I accept that the bobbleheads, those assholes, should pick our President for us. Because that really is what's going on, and right now they're picking one of the two: O-Same-a or McSame.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
like i said, lb: let's try "democracy."
cause as far as i can tell, we're still really short of that standard.
ach. to bed. later, catz.
we keep moving towards more democracy, so
maybe as long as we keep checks and balances and a strong justice system to stop majority rule that hurts others?
Esp in voting (but not since 2000, sadly)--we've slowly been enfranchising more and more and cleaning up the worst abuses like Tammany etc, no?
One prob is that coalition governments like in much of Europe are actually more representative than our winner-take-all system, and more direct democracy wouldn't fix that at all.
How if not why on the FL & MI delegate penalties
After Michigan and Florida moved their dates up the DNC initially demanded they change back to something later, in line with party rules. Both states refused, and the DNC stripped them of all delegates; under national party rules the DNC could have taken 50% but had the option of more and they chose to do that, citing the defiance. Make no mistake about the state party people being victims here, they took a hard line; if they’d shown remorse they’d have gotten off with the 50% penalty up front, allowed to have the elections and then had the rest of the delegates seated right about now. Pity.
When MI & FL wouldn’t change, Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina all petitioned the DNC for waivers, like good rule-abiding states, and got them. No violation, no penalty.
This all happened back in October, when Clinton was polling nationally in the 40s while Obama was still in the 20s. Deciding in October that stripping FL & MI of delegates would tip the primary to Obama shows a prescience that I’m unwilling to grant exists in the DNC, or anyone else.
The thing that is most disturbing to me now is the apparent admission by Florida officials that a reputable election is not possible there. Perhaps we need to get Jimmy Carter and the UN involved before November.
Wampum
Wampum is now officially my blog Most Deserving of Wider Recognition