DNC to Florida Dems: Move Your Primary Or Lose Your Delegates

AP:

Florida Democrats would forfeit their votes in selecting a presidential nominee unless they delay their state election by at least a week, the national party said in a stern action Saturday meant to discourage others from leapfrogging ahead to earlier dates.

The Florida party has 30 days to submit an alternative to its planned Jan. 29 primary or lose its 210 delegates to the nominating convention in Denver next summer.

Read the whole story: AP

Comments

[Dantheman99]

02:57 PM on 08/27/2007

Even a set of rotating regional primaries is inherently unfair because it gives one region more power and influence than another. Also, most regional primary proposals still have Iowa and New Hampshire going first. Nothing will change the process until we stand up to Iowa and New Hampshire's sense of entitlement.

There is only one fair system.

A national primary/caucus day where everyone's vote has equal value in choosing the nominee, and a direct popular vote with a runoff if necessary. That's it.

Let the Electoral College go to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

Less populous states already get widely disproportionate, and some would say unfair, representation in the U.S. Senate. They do not need, nor do they merit additional disproportionate representation in nominatng and electing the President.

[Dantheman99]

02:39 PM on 08/27/2007

Screw Iowa and New Hampshire and there sense of entitlement to winnow down the choices for the rest of us, and screw the Electoral College which allows non-popular vote winners to win and reduces elections to "swing" states.

Even assuming you believe any state should go before any other in the process, Iowa and New Hampshire do not deserve that priviliged advantage any more than any other.

There should be ONE national primary/caucus day in the Spring, with a direct popular vote for the President in November and a runoff election if necessary in December if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote.

I'm mad as hell of being effectively disenfranchised by a process where Iowa and New Hampshire choose the nominees and Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida choose the winners. In 2004, it was if there wasn't even a Presidential election happening in most of the country.

I support Florida. In fact, the big four states of California, Texas, Florida, and New York should all move their primaries to the day of the Iowa caucus and dare the DNC and RNC to disenfranchise them.

It's time to take our democracy back from pundits and the political class.

We need a 21st Century Presidential election process, not a 19th Century one.

I support Florida all the way. If the RNC or DNC choose not to recognize those delegates and throw away that state in the fall, they will deserve what happens to them.

[ProudNYCLiberal]

08:57 PM on 08/26/2007

I'm sick and tired of Iowa and NH deciding who is going to run as the Democratic presidential nominee. By the time the primary gets to NY, all the good candidates have dropped out. I'd like to see the primary order selected randomly, with a new primary order every four years. Then, perhaps, the candidates might actually come and campaign in New York, Massachusetts, and other states that are now usually ignored.

I imagine this change will happen at about the same time we get rid of the electoral college in favor of one person one vote, get rid of the Senate in favor of one person one vote, and give Washington, D.C. a voting member in the House.

[tpagy]

07:11 PM on 08/26/2007

Well they sure do no how to lose elections cause this Florida Democrate gets it and sees no reason to stay in a party thats punishing the voters over there sad little P---ing game hope the parties elites are Happy after being in this party since I turned 18 am now 50 now see no need to support it its just like the thug republicans except they don't eat there own so to those who slam Florida you need to realize we get it and it's no pretty I will vote but for something other than Dems or repub

[naschkatze]

06:05 PM on 08/26/2007

The reform I would like to see happen, and before the 2008 election, is that the Democratic parties across the country disallow cross-overs and independents voting in their primaries. Otherwise, don't you think it possible that Karl Rove is directing Republicans to vote in the primaries to obtain the candidate the Republicans want? Sort of what the Republicans did in Connecticut in the Lieberman/Lamont race.

The Republican party in Oregon allowed independents to vote in their primary for a short spell (not the Democrats), and I as an independent can tell you that I voted in it solely to try to get rid of Senator Packwood. I am still an independent, but I think it is a good idea that independents and cross-overs not be allowed in primaries because their votes can be intended for disruption as mine was.

[rwe]

03:02 PM on 08/26/2007

A suggestion for both parties that might just get a lot more people active in the process would be to designate a primary voting day for all states. Example the last tuesday in March for democrats and last Tuesday in May for Republicans or vice versa . This would get more interest. There would be no more additonal cost and the MSM would love it and it would probably benifit the actual voters

[Ammobob]

01:38 PM on 08/26/2007

As the MAX paraphrased above, If FL doesn't change it's Primary date back to Feb 5th, they will be penalized at the nominating convention. Thus 'disenfranchising' committee votes at the convention.

Also, not having candidates stumping during the primaries in FL would had the Repubs FL on a platter in the General Election.

As I said before, Defeatocrats will step on their own 'dorks' before 11/08. Ya gotta love it!

[shockmagog]

02:28 PM on 08/26/2007

The Florida delegation will have to back down, therefore making this speculative exercise moot.

[Ammobob]

01:34 PM on 08/26/2007

The MAX has posted some good opinion on this and no HuffPo Whiner has added a 'peep'. WOW! Must be irrefutable then.

MaxBob (See profile | I'm a fan of MaxBob)

Dean's right to insist on enforcing the rules, even if Dean has gone into hiding while his Rules Committee makes the point for him. The Florida delegation voted for the DNC rules, which stipulated that a primary there before February 5th would trigger a loss of half of their delegation. The DNC now warns them that they have the option of invalidating the entire delegation if they persist in their obstinacy, a rather extreme position that would essentially render every Democratic vote in Florida's primary a waste of time. That's why Nelson argues that the Democrats want to disenfranchize Florida, a rather ironic position given all the screeching Democrats did over the 2000 election.

[TJTelecaster]

01:31 PM on 08/26/2007

The DNC is pathetic and Democratic Candidates are Pathetic and Bullshit except for Kucinich..!

Sadly he hasn't a chance, so we must be resigned to lousy idiot phony sold out compromised corrupt two faced snake in the grass hypocrites as leaders for at least another 8 years..

Simple as that..!

If Voting changed anything they'd make it against the Law..!

We need a 3rd party..so bad..!

[Nonamnesiac]

03:03 PM on 08/26/2007

Although I agree with you, I would request progressives to stop parroting the MSM line that Kucinich "doesn't stand a chance". Right now the 3 Democratic front runners are all pro-war, believing in keeping an unstated number "residual" troops in Iraq for the indefinite future. The MSM and DLC types (and unfortunately too many progressives), evidently in order to appear "smart", always add "doesn't stand a chance" to anything about Kucinich. I'd say we stick to our guns in the primary around Kucinich. Even if some progressives fear doing that even though they believe Kucinich is best on the issues, I would request they not refer to him as "not standing a chance" whenever they use his name.

[TJTelecaster]

07:24 PM on 08/26/2007

I hope you are right I see Kucinich as the only viable candidate for any real change and he's got my vote..!

Otherwise I would have quit the Democratic party already..

Unfortunately Edwards is just Hillary-lite..!

[wednesdayguevara]

01:13 PM on 08/26/2007

I'm sorry, I'm ignorant. Does this mean that the Dem primary votes in Florida won't count?

[Marsangusidaho]

01:13 PM on 08/26/2007

Is there any chance of mixing up the primary/caucus race next time? People in NH and Iowa have to understand that the rest of us resent their insistence on being first. How about a lottery system early on to decide primary dates? We could group states into five or ten regions.
There are probably a lot of problems with this that I haven't even considered, but something has to give. NH and Iowa cannot always be first, and the rest of us can't continue this ridiculous race to out-first them.

[TheHawaiianGecko]

01:07 PM on 08/26/2007

The Democratic party doesn't choose the presidential candidate anyway. Primaries do! Floridians are thinking; So what Howard? Ignore our delegates, it doesn't matter anyway.

The parties really don't have the importance they had prior to the '70s. I'm sure that's why the Democrats buried crazy Howard with a job that only 'he' thought was important.

[JohnKemp]

12:42 PM on 08/26/2007

I've been watchihg this my whole life & never have understood it. Why Iowa & NH are so pivotal in the nomination process is beyond me.

The primaries need to be moved BACK, not up & get them much closer to the general election.

The primaries should be divided into about four groups of diverse states; one group going in March of this election, followed by the second group in April, May & then finally in June.

The "first group" this election would then be "last" the next election.

[shockmagog]

02:32 PM on 08/26/2007

Exactly! Regional primaries, 2 or 3 months ahead of the election. Some others mentioned this as well.

[Nonamnesiac]

12:14 PM on 08/26/2007

Everything would be a great deal better if the electoral kindergarten were eliminated from the Constitution. Why should 538 people, nearly all of whom are partisan political hacks, have the potential right to reverse a vote by 130 or 140 million Americans? Why shouldn't Americans be guaranteed that our President be chosen by a majority of the voters?

People may say this is apples and oranges. But I don't think so.

[siegfried]

12:29 PM on 08/26/2007

In addition even when it works as it's supposed to it weighs the votes of those in less populous states more heavily than those in more populous states.

[booker52]

11:47 AM on 08/26/2007

Good for them, all this moving of dates is just making the run for the President just entirely too long. Now there is a bid by the RNC to change how the Calif would count their electoral votes, I say bullshit. More game playing. Just stop it!!