Florida Will Now Destroy The Sanctity Of The 2012 Primary Calendar

When we last had occasion to speak about the chaotic state of the 2012 primary calendar, the state of Arizona, under the direction of Governor Jan Brewer, had decided to move their primary up to February 28, 2012. That decision -- in violation of Republican National Committee guidelines that stipulated that Arizona was not allowed to have its primary before March 6 -- earned the ire of of the South Carolina GOP, which wasn't too keen on sharing its extra-special early primary date with an interloper.

At the time, it was easy to imagine that other states might follow Arizona's example and mount their own challenges to the sanctity of the dates accorded to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. "Florida comes to mind," I warned.

Well, guess what?

Florida is now expected to hold its presidential primary on the last day in January 2012, a move likely to throw the carefully arranged Republican nominating calendar into disarray and jumpstart the nominating process a month earlier than party leaders had hoped.

Florida House Speaker Dean Cannon told CNN on Tuesday that a state commission exploring potential primary dates is likely to choose January 31 to hold the nominating contest.

If that happens, it would almost certainly force the traditional early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada to leapfrog Florida and move their primaries and caucuses into early- to mid-January.

That's from CNN this morning, which reported that GOP officials in Florida will be meeting this Friday. Cannon says that he "expect[s] that they will pick January 31 as Florida's primary date." Florida does so knowing that this will push the early states earlier into January -- their aim is to make it so the Sunshine State remains fifth on the primary calendar, because they believe that will make Florida the decisive state in the nominating process.

The RNC is apparently willing to work with Florida on this, giving them a February 21 date that preserves the turf of the early primary states, but CNN reports that Florida is "wary of states like Colorado, Georgia and Missouri, which are threatening to hold primaries or caucuses before February 21." And if Florida makes the jump, it could touch off a stampede of states moving to earlier and earlier dates. The more Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are encroached upon, the more likely it becomes that everyone involved in the GOP primary will be spending the holidays in Des Moines.

Traditionally, states that violate the primary rules have their delegations decertified or halved, but as things stand, the RNC has already balked at imposing rigorous sanctions against wayward states. Republican officials in South Carolina and Iowa have asked RNC officials to consider taking the Republican National Convention away from Florida as a punishment for violating the calendar, but one has to imagine that plans for the Convention are already far enough along to make that suggestion a non-starter.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[hyperspace]

04:07 AM on 09/30/2011

I'm from Canada, I'm confused. Why isn't this held on the same day for everyone? can someone explain how this works? And what's the difference between a primary and a caucaus?

[BrianPK80]

07:22 AM on 09/30/2011

A primary is a straight up vote, like the one held on election day. Open primaries are open to the general public and closed primaries are open to only registered members of that particular party. A state assigns delegates in proportion to the candidates' share in a Democratic primary and in a winner-takes-all fashion in a Republican primary. Caucuses are meetings where representatives are chosen to choose delegates at state or district conventions. The meetings last longer than simply voting at a poll booth. Caucuses are more old-fashioned.

The dates are different is because the date of a party primary/caucus is set by the state legislature with the national party acting as guidance, but not binding. The national parties set the calendar and Iowa/New Hampshire were chosen as the first states because they were small and therefore provided an opportunity for candidates to meet voters in a grassroots & town style fashion. Advertisement costs are lower there too, which gives unfunded candidates a better chance.

A state's incentive for following the calendar is that there's a soft threat from the party of disqualifying the state's delegation if it goes rogue but this is usually not enforced because by the time the process ends, a winner is chosen and antagonizing a state is bad politics for the general election. (One exception is when the DNC punished Michigan and Florida in 2008, both of which voted for Hillary Clinton, halving their delegations to award Barack Obama the nomination).

[hyperspace]

10:57 AM on 09/30/2011

Thanks for your explaination, it seems it is making thing more complicated than it needs. I would've thought some straight up voting would be enough.

[dbrett480]

06:51 PM on 09/29/2011

This is ridiculous. Why don't they simply rotate the dates of the primary and then everyone will be happy? Or just have every state have the primary on the same day.

[BrianPK80]

07:22 AM on 09/30/2011

Everyone happy? That's socialism! ;-)

[PUAAN]

04:08 PM on 09/29/2011

Before you know it, the presidential primaries for the next election cycle will be scheduled for the day after the general election of the cycle just past.

General election in Nov 2012, primaries for 2016 the next day. Why not?

[berrycuda]

03:08 PM on 09/29/2011

The games America play with its politics.

Lets just have ONE national primary date. This would end all this garbage.

Any against this just wanst to manipulate the system.

[2Labradors]

02:54 PM on 09/29/2011

We really do need one National Primary for both parties. Personally I'm tired of having a handful of states determine who the candidates will be. By the time our state has its primary, a majority of the candidates have dropped out, including ones that I liked. Our current primary system stinks (just my humble opinion).

[jhNY]

02:41 PM on 09/29/2011

Whatever it would take-- to have the viability of candidates in either party not determined by the residents of tiny states whose electorates do not compare well with the views of the majority in the nation-- would be welcome.

[miwabu]

02:25 PM on 09/29/2011

ONE NATIONAL PRIMARY day is all we need, no rep. or dem just vote for your person and let the two highest vote geters move on. Maybe a early Sept primary and then the Nov. vote. Simple

[skatulaki]

02:24 PM on 09/29/2011

The Tea Party in Florida has begun to crumble:

http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2011-08-22/tea-party-chapter-turmoil

[dwright]

02:21 PM on 09/29/2011

On November 2, 2004 President Bush defied both public opinion and history to win the election
51 - 48.

How was this done? Simple...

Vote suppression/voter intimidation and deception.
Shortages of voting locations and ballot forms.
Foreign monitors barred from polls.
Unmatched exit polls/actual results - actual results always skewed to Republicans.
Masses of e-Voting "glitches". Computers lost votes. Presidential votes miscast on e-Voting machines throughout the US.
More recorded votes than voters.
Republicans gained 128.45% in Florida counties using optical scan voting machines while Democrats lost 21% - some districts showed gains of over 400% while one, Liberty County, gained over 700% for Republicans.
Warren County officials locked down the county administration building on election night and blocked anyone from observing the vote count as the nation awaited Ohio's returns.
Bush had 'incredible' vote tallies. 7% turnout reported in Cleveland precinct. In Cuyahoga County different towns had the exact same number of "extra" votes. And on, and on...

[ehorth]

03:11 PM on 09/29/2011

Excellent points. I think that we have been reaching system overload for quite some time and we are seeing the results in the massive corruption of our elected leaders and the continual circumvention of our election process. We need to look seriously and hard at how we are conducting ourselves in choosing the leaders of our country. I think we have overcomplicated the primary process and left it up to political hacks rather than the ones who should matter, We The People!

F&F

[BigBearcatBill]

02:18 PM on 09/29/2011

I think we are seeing the lack of cohesiveness the republican party has developed, maybe it is morals (which are finally starting to surface) vs. million/biliionaires, last I heard the two don't mix too well often. Is it time for dissolution into a third party of moderates/independents? Never thought Tea was such as strong solvent.

[psnyder325]

01:56 PM on 09/29/2011

The only intelligent way to do this (so America won't do it, because it is intelligent) is to have a national primary all on the same day. That way these little states won't have an undue influence on what crooks get put up for public office. Make "Super Tuesday" really super.

[stop the politics]

02:28 PM on 09/29/2011

That is a good solution. My preference would be to divide the country into four regions, with each region voting in successive weeks. And every four years the regions rotate. So region 1 goes first in 2012, but would be fourth in 2016, third in 2020, and second in 2024. This would allow for more campaign stops/exposure for the candidates than a single national day, but it would also keep a the same few states from having ridiculous influence year after year.

[ehorth]

03:16 PM on 09/29/2011

Not too bad, but that means it could take 20 years before the primary regions come to whichever the 4th designated region is. No matter how it's sliced, it still means that every election, somewhere a group of states is voting later than the early ones. Better to have a universal primary all over the country on the same day and let's make that day a Saturday while we're at it, a national election day. The regular election should also be changed to a Saturday too, so that more people will go out and vote.

[AntiClast]

01:52 PM on 09/29/2011

New Hampshire promotes "retail politics". The candidates get experience in living rooms and get to hear what's actually on people's minds. Not what gibberish the media is parroting or what the polls ask about. What concerns you and me, everyday.

The politicians appreciate the unique opportunity to meet with 20 or 30 people and to practice their lines on them, out of the glare of the media. New Hampshire people joke they can't vote for a nominee until they've heard him/her 3 times.

In this hugely commercial age, I believe we're an asset.

Besides, the state draws in a lot of revenue from the first primary in the nation status. We will move it to Christmas day if necessary!

[onlyThis]

01:49 PM on 09/29/2011

How about this. Have a set of mini-primaries. 10 states, in different parts of the country, get to vote first, then in one or two weeks the next set of 10 states votes and so on for 5 sets of primaries. Then, in the next presidential election a different set of 10 states votes first and so on with the 5 differents set of 10 states each taking their turn as being the first.

[Grunty1]

01:48 PM on 09/29/2011

Time to start drawing lots at random, for ALL states.

[onlyThis]

01:42 PM on 09/29/2011

USA 1776-1980 RIP