Do Over?
I’m kind of curious to know what you all think of this story, where the Democratic National Committee is considering having a second primary in Florida and Michigan, probably via mail-in votes. See, the DNC decided not to allow states to move their primaries to before Super Tuesday, and when Florida and Michigan did so anyway, the DNC decided to punish them by not allowing their delegates to count toward election totals. But now that the race between Clinton and Obama has turned out to be so close, they’re suddenly wanting those votes to count. And it wouldn’t even be fair to count the votes as they were cast the first time, because Obama wasn’t even on the Michigan primary ballot, as he was abiding by the DNC’s regulations. I don’t remember what rational Clinton’s camp used to put her on the ballot. I’m not even sure that it’s totally kosher to have another vote. Remember the joke, “Vote early, vote often”? Yeah. It seems like it might be kind of illegal to have a do over.
But I’ve gotta say, if I lived in Michigan or Florida, I’d be a little bit pissed off at the idea. The DNC is spinning it like it’s important to let the people in these states have their say, let their votes be counted, that kind of thing. You know what? If you didn’t think my vote mattered enough the first time, then screw you. The whole thing reeks too much to me of saying some states (i.e., Iowa and New Hampshire) matter more than others, and thus they are allowed (for “historic reasons”) to have their primaries early, while others must wait until the field has been culled, so voters in those states might not even have the opportunity to vote for their candidate of choice.
So, here’s an idea…voters in Michigan and Florida should say, “Screw You” to the DNC, tell them that if their votes didn’t matter then, why do they only matter now that it’s close? And then, in the future, why don’t we all get behind a national primary day, where the primaries are on ONE DAY, and some of the inequities of the system can be removed from the whole process? That’s my thought. What’s yours?
7 Comments
Rain
I want them to do it over, of course, because I favor Obama and he would lose by them staying as they are. In the future, I would like to see the primary system changed, dump the caucuses where only a few people have the time or energy to spend all day there; and go to regional primaries. No more Iowa and New Hampshire first. Let it be done by either parts of the country in blocks (which could be broken up many different ways as one example: West Coast and nearby states, New England taking in Pennsyania and maybe West Virginia, South, Midwest, Mountain West with the primaries a few weeks apart or alternately group one part of each region into different primaries; so you’d have maybe a few states from each region voting each time). However you did it, it’d be 5 or 6 block primaries. Then switch who goes first every four years; so no more favoritism to one region or another as it currently can be. Iowa and New Hamphsire have way too much sway given they are not representative of the United States as a whole.
Starshine
Rain’s idea is interesting. That way, the candidates could still campaign all around the country, and the rotating system of which region goes first would level the playing field a bit. Even so, I still favor a national primary day. It seems like the current system is so haphazard and doesn’t give an equal voice to each state. Me no likey.
Can I also just vent a bit? …. the “news” seems to spin election coverage so much! Sometimes, I have to question if I’m watching a news story or a campaign speech in favor of the network’s choice candidate. My thought is that a national election day might limit the media’s ability to “campaign” for the candidate of its choice. It would probably still find a way, though.
Nance
I am confused by the “screw you” attitude. Why wouldn’t Florida and Michigan want their votes to count? It was the choice of their governors, against DNC rules, to hold illegal primaries early. Obviously, those who voted anyway wanted their votes to count and hoped they would in some way. If I were a FL or MI voter, I’d be furious with my state governor for putting my voice and my vote at risk and I’d be leading a petition drive or something to get a re-vote.
As far as correcting this for the future, I have always advocated a National Primary. We don’t have a staggered or tiered General Election, so why do it this way for a Primary? Let the candidates campaign as usual toward one Super Tuesday National Primary, period. Stop front-loading primaries a la New Hampshire and Iowa and one Super Tuesday. Stop allowing the media and money to weed out the field early before each state gets to vote on a full slate of candidates. By the time I got to vote in Ohio, more than half the candidates were gone. Look at Pennsylvania, for example. They have one republican candidate and only two Democrats. I agree with Starshine that the media, given this much time, has begun to manufacture stories, not objectively report.
One Primary, One Day.
J
I agree that the voters in Florida and Michigan should want their votes to count. But that the DNC punished them by not counting them in the first place, by punishing them for moving the primaries, thus keeping the status quo on the preference for Iowa, New Hampshire, and Super Tuesday states would make me mad. And yes, I’d be mad at my Governor as well if I lived in one of those states. I guess it just feels to me like they only want those votes now that they need them, but didn’t really care about those votes (or voters, by extension) before.
Jimmy
I’m all for One Primary, One Day.
But more than that……..I would like to see the general election changed completely.
I think all tax payers should make their “Presidential” vote on the first page of their federal tax statement. This would cut down on voter fraud, and also ensure a much higher percentage of voter turn out.
If you don’t pay taxes….you don’t vote!
PS. Somebody sent me a very sweet letter today. Thanks.
Rain
Interesting discussion. The reason I favor more than one primary is it shows us a lot about the character of these candidates in how they run their campaign, how they deal with loss or victory, how they react under pressure. Sometimes we know only the image and after a campaign season, we know a lot better how they would be in the office. I do agree though that we need change in terms of how it is run, but I doubt very much we will get it 🙁
Py Korry
One of the things that rarely gets reported or mentioned about political parties is this: they are private organizations who can write their own rules. Having a “do over” in FL and MI could happen if the DNC says so. It’s an odd thing to stomach that political parties are “private organizations” that are only subject to certain public laws even though members of the parties are elected as public servants.
A national primary would certainly equalize role states play in deciding each nominee. But considering political parties (like any big organization) are conservative by nature, they won’t change unless they are forced to do so.