 | Florida Won’t Do A Legitimate Primary. Follow the Rules, DNC. |
A year and a half ago, the full Democratic National Committee, with representation from Florida and Michigan, came to an agreement on the rules for the 2008 Democratic Party Presidential nomination. The rules clearly stated that if states like Florida or Michigan held primaries before February 5 (remember Super Tuesday?), the delegates from their primaries would not be seated. Florida and Michigan held primaries before February 5 anyway, on the theory that this would get them more attention because nobody would pay attention to any primaries on or after February 5, 2008 (remember that notion?) and it wasn’t as if their delegates would tip the balance in the end anyway (right?).
Well, every single delegate has been carefully counted and tracked now, nobody thinks the nomination is a done deal even into May, and there’s every chance that the identity of the Democratic presidential nominee will not be clear going into the Democratic Party national convention in August. Given the ineptitude and moral bankruptcy of Republican governance since 2000, the chances are very good that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will become the next President of the United States, the most powerful individual in the entire world. The stakes are very high.
Florida and Michigan have been given the option to return to the rules for the party nomination agreed upon a year and a half ago by running new contests (whether by caucus or primary) that follow the rules. But the Florida Democratic Party just announced that it will not hold a new primary or caucus that follows the rules. It nevertheless wants its delegates to be seated, and is asking the Democratic National Committee to change the rules of delegate selection in the presidential nomination in order for that to happen.
I think that the idea that a state’s population of Democratic Party members shouldn’t have a voice in choosing the Democratic Party nominee for president is ludicrous. I also think that the rules which allow some states to get earlier calendar placement than others are nuts. But the time for the setting or alteration of those rules is past for this election cycle. The time for any alteration passed on January 3, 2008, when Iowa caucusgoers started the process off. The elections to choose the Democratic presidential nominee are underway — they have been underway for two months and two weeks now. If elections are to be perceived as legitimate, they must follow the Three Irregular Times Rules of Elections:
Rule Number One. Do not change the rules for running the elections in the middle of running the elections.
Rule Number Two. Do not change the rules for running the elections in the middle of running the elections.
Rule Number Three. Do not change the rules for running the elections in the middle of running the elections.
If the rules for running elections are changed in the middle of actually running them, and the contest is close (which, hello, it is), then the end result of the meddled-with elections will be intense anger and righteous rage. Half of the Democratic Party electorate (whichever half voted for the candidate who lost the nomination) will point to the rules change and claim that the nominating election was stolen from their favorite by corrupted insiders. And who knows? They might be right.
Don’t change the rules. A smart Democratic Party will not change the rules. Here’s to hoping that the Democratic Party is smart. Ahem. Hoo boy.
Contact Us
Haha.. hahahahahahhahahahaha…. “smart Democratic Party.” lol.
Seriously, though… the time for being smart has long since passed. It’s looking less and less likely that the Dems will be able to select a president without making lots of people angry about the selection process.
I completely agree when you say that if the rules are changed and it affects the outcome, people will be upset. But I’d also say that people will be upset if they keep the rules as is, and it affects the election. People don’t take kindly to poorly-chosen rules.
So if the Democratic Party wants to save themselves at this point, it’s going to be less a matter of being smart and more a matter of being diplomatic.
Comment by purple ninja girl — 3/18/2008 @ 1:46 am
If the Democratic Party were to learn anything from this then they should learn that they need to establish regional primaries that occur monthly over the course of 4-6 months. There could still be an allowance for Iowa and New Hampshire, but the rest of the states will have to vote in blocks on, say, the first Tuesday of March to July (one-fifth each month). There would be a rotating schedule such that the block of states (say the Northeast) that votes in March one election cycle, will then vote in July during the next. Any states that deviate from this rigid cycle will be penalized by losing most or all of their delegates.
The only way that the Democratic Party (or the Republicans for that matter) will be able to assert the kind of control necessary to enforce this disciplined election cycle, is if Florida and Michigan are held accountable for their actions this year. Then, in future years, the example will have been set and states will know that if they deviate from the appointed cycle then they will be punished.
I feel sorry for the voters in Florida and Michigan, but rules were rules and cannot be broken without consequences.
Comment by Mark — 3/18/2008 @ 8:13 am
There’s not a reason to feel sorry for the voters in Florida yet. Florida ought to change course and declare that it will hold a legitimate primary. That’s the best solution. But it appears that Florida is playing a massive game of chicken in this regard.
Comment by Jim — 3/18/2008 @ 8:21 am
The way I heard it was that Florida is controlled by Republicans and it was the Republicans who set the date for the primary.
Comment by Iroquois — 3/18/2008 @ 12:58 pm
No, there’s *every* reason to feel sorry for the voters in Florida. The FL legislature is who bumped up the primary in the first place, and I know first-hand how difficult it can be for voters to sway the opinions of state legislators. I suspect the same could be said for the state political party leadership.
Comment by purple ninja girl — 3/18/2008 @ 2:37 pm