Michigan and Florida Voters Deprived of Franchise

[Pangloss]

Yup, in the United States of America, voters in two major states will not be allowed to have a say in their states' primaries. And those are voters in the Democratic Party -- that stalwart defender of freedom and opposition to those evil conservatives.

 

This bizarre sequence of events is happening because of issues regarding the scheduling of primaries. In essence it has become a battle over who holds power in the Democratic Party -- national or local officials.

 

Essentially what's happened is that state officials moved the primaries ahead of February 5th, which is the date that the party decreed that state elections must follow. The reason for that date is that it allows Iowa and New Hampshire to remain the first states with primaries. That's not about tradition, it's about national determination. These two primaries really have nothing to do with those two states -- it allows centralization of focus. The media can focus all of its attention in one place and therefore so can the candidates.

 

But many states now believe that this kind of primary system robs their citizens of having any impact on the determination of candidates. I agree with this position. It's wrong to let two states decide whom I get to vote for.

 

So Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up ahead of the decreed date. The result is that the national Democratic Party has taken two actions:

 

1) Delegates from these states will not be counted.

2) Candidates were asked to sign pledges not to run in these states' primaries.

 

The party can't actually stop the states from having primaries, but now what's the point? I had predicted earlier (as many had) that the party would be unable to get the candidates to sign those pledges, but apparently all the candidates are too busy seeing the benefits of the current system to care about the rights of individuals. And the news media is playing along by barely reporting the story, because quite frankly the current system is much better for them as well.

 

Yeah. Democrats think that. Democrats. How 'bout that.

[ParanoiA]

I haven't been paying attention, I had no idea it had gone this far.

 

So, let me get this straight...The local election officials determine when primaries are to be held (assuming because they are state level officials), but the national election officials determine what states can be counted and so forth?

 

I don't understand alot about primaries. I thought it was more protected by law than it sounds. Could the democratic national committe/party ignore any state's primary votes that they want? It almost sounds like "primaries" are more of a priviledge provided by the national officials.

[DrDNA]

So Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up ahead of the decreed date. The result is that the national Democratic Party has taken two actions:

 

1) Delegates from these states will not be counted.

2) Candidates were asked to sign pledges not to run in these states' primaries.

 

Wow. Michigan and Florida are considered to be "key states". This has got to have more impact than if something similar happened in for example Montana or RI....no one might notice then. But Michigan and Florida?

 

I wonder what they are going to do at the convention; not call on the great states of Michigan and Florida?

 

I have always been under the impression that, since they are not "real" elections, primaries are not restricted by ANY law, regulation or governing body.....and why some states have open primaries and some have closed primaries. As far as chosing the delegates goes, I believe that there is no regulated system in place...part of the 2 party system. Of course I could be mistaken. Please enlighten me if I am.

[Pangloss]

So, let me get this straight...The local election officials determine when primaries are to be held (assuming because they are state level officials), but the national election officials determine what states can be counted and so forth?

 

That's basically it. The national officials control the convention, which is the place at which the delegates are counted. That's what actually determines who gets to be the party's candidate.

 

 

I don't understand alot about primaries. I thought it was more protected by law than it sounds. Could the democratic national committe/party ignore any state's primary votes that they want? It almost sounds like "primaries" are more of a priviledge provided by the national officials.

 

The parties do have an obvious right to determine whom they want to put up as their candidate. But their rights are protected under law, to the extent of making it harder for other parties to compete (reducing our options at the poll), and as such opponents have a reasonable legal case for action here. Lawsuits are already flying around, some of them participated in by major elected officials such as Senator Bill Nelson of Florida.

 

There is also a partisan dimension to this, but it doesn't seem to have a whole lot of traction. Some Florida democrats earlier tried to pawn this off as being the fault of state Republicans, who do have majorities in the state legislature (not to mention the governorship). They still maintain that this was a key issue in causing this matter to reach a head, but at this point they're mainly just mad at national Democratic party people.

[Sisyphus]

It's certainly a messy system. Really it would make more sense for the parties (either the state or the national party, frankly) to decide when to hold their primaries, not the state governments. (I guess the logistics of such a thing might be difficult, though.) As is, you have yet another crutch for a dominant two party system, not to mention...

 

Some Florida democrats earlier tried to pawn this off as being the fault of state Republicans, who do have majorities in the state legislature (not to mention the governorship).

 

You don't think that's a reasonable argument? It is clearly in their power and completely to their advantage to deliberately muck things up. Florida Democrats don't get a say in choosing their candidate, and are therefore less committed to him. Any advantage can make the difference in a state like Florida, as we all know all too well. And best of all, it's only the Democrats who end up looking bad!

[CDarwin]

I have always been under the impression that, since they are not "real" elections, primaries are not restricted by ANY law, regulation or governing body.....and why some states have open primaries and some have closed primaries. As far as chosing the delegates goes, I believe that there is no regulated system in place...part of the 2 party system. Of course I could be mistaken. Please enlighten me if I am.

 

All the state primary laws (and the very idea of a primary itself) come from the reform legislation in the early 1900s that was aimed at making American politics more democratic. Legislation having a say in these things as opposed to parties just doing what they want is supposed to insure the common voters get a choice in who their parties nominate and support to ensure more democracy, not erode it. Obviously there are difficulties.

[DrDNA]

All the state primary laws (and the very idea of a primary itself) come from the reform legislation in the early 1900s that was aimed at making American politics more democratic. Legislation having a say in these things as opposed to parties just doing what they want is supposed to insure the common voters get a choice in who their parties nominate and support to ensure more democracy, not erode it. Obviously there are difficulties.

 

Do you have a good reference? I would like to know more.

[CDarwin]

Do you have a good reference? I would like to know more.

 

Well my history textbook... The Wikipedia article gives a good accounting in the history section of it's article on presidential primaries, but it's not very well cited. A cursory Google couldn't seem to find much of anything anywhere else.

[Pangloss]

You don't think that's a reasonable argument? It is clearly in their power and completely to their advantage to deliberately muck things up. Florida Democrats don't get a say in choosing their candidate, and are therefore less committed to him. Any advantage can make the difference in a state like Florida, as we all know all too well. And best of all, it's only the Democrats who end up looking bad!

 

I would if it wasn't for the fact that Florida Democrats were behind the measure and supported it. It was only after it passed and the national party started barking that they changed their tune.

 

Party politicing is a different animal at the state level. State legislators are typically part-timers (literally) with no real political future mainly looking to pad their resumes and wallets, and perhaps here and there actually looking out for the state. Which is not that much of a stretch given that that's HOW they pad their resumes and wallets -- by improving the state's business prospects, public appeal, and so forth. Even state Republicans lament the current situation, because it's bad for the state as a whole.

 

So typically a "State X" Democrat has a lot more in common with a "State X" Republican than a "National" Democrat. He's more interested in what a "State X" Republican thinks, and vice-versa, because they probably do business together (or have, or will). And this may sound silly, but what little nationalistic (for lack of a better term) identity still remaining within the states invariably exhibits itself in state politics ahead of anywhere else. So a "State X" Republican wouldn't actually (typically) WANT to do something that might cause grief for a "State X" Democrat at the national level. It would actually be counter-productive.

 

We see another aspect of this sometimes in the redistricting efforts. Those aren't about national politics, they're about local politics. State politics. Yeah there's a desire of a state party to have the national "delegation" (as they often call the conglomerate of all of a state's Democrats and Republicans in Congress) be a majority in their party, but they don't care about national issues, they care about local issues. Put another way, they don't play foul with redistricting because they want to reopen the abortion debate in this country. They play foul with redistricting because they want Federal budget allocations spent one way or another. They're no more invested in who gets to be the next president than you or I.

 

But these are just general trends and don't prove your speculation wrong at all. It's just to show that the motivations are a little different at the state level. As you suggest, there's a reasonably motivation here for state Democrats to want the state to go to a Democrat in 2008, and for state Republicans to want the state to go to a Republican. No question about it.