Florida and Michigan given full voting rights, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 24-8-2008 @ 03:03 PM by Secret Shadow

It seems that the DNC has allowed both michigan and Florida full voting rights as opposed to the half voting rights and prior no votes that they had been the two states punishment for early primaries:

Florida and Michigan voting rights-Yahoo News

The convention credentials committee voted unanimously to restore the voting privileges at the behest of Barack Obama, the party's presumptive nominee for president. The states were initially stripped of delegates for holding primaries before Feb. 5. The party's rules committee restored the delegates in May, but gave them only half votes.

Democrats hope the gesture will strengthen their standing in two important battleground states while ending a contentious chapter of the nominating process.

The democratic representatives from the respective states view this as a victory in a challenge to the current primary systeme which currently states that New Hampshire and Iowa are the only states allowed early primary status

Other Democratic representatives, however, feel that this moves is damaging to the DNC's ability to control the primary schedule and believe that we may see more of this from other states in future elections.

Do you guys view this as a victory for the individual rights of each state or see this as a loss of control over the broad reaching rules of the DNC?

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 04:46 PM by kidflash2008

reply to post by Secret Shadow

Presidential primaries are not in the state's control, but determined by the political party in question. Earlier, the Democratic Party voted to punish the two states because they set their primaries earlier, with Sen. Clinton supporting it. If I were a member of a political party (I'm registered Independent), I would support letting a few states having early primaries and rotating each four years. It just seems two states have a lot of power in deciding who gets to be president before anyone gets to vote. Another way could be a national primary, but I don't think the smaller candidates would have a chance without money. Gov. Huckabee did quite well in Iowa with very little money. He would never of had a chance with a national primary.
When a state breaks the rules, it is up to the party to decide what is a fit "punishment". If the parties do nothing or back off, we could see primaries starting in September of the year before the election and decided by Halloween!

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 06:52 PM by The Vagabond

The real winners in this are likely to be the wealthiest candidates in future elections, especially those which are well connected in large states.

Early primaries in small states have created a "choke point" where a smaller campaign could effectively engage larger and better funded campaigns, and possibly gain the upper hand on the way into Super Tuesday if they could come out on top early.

Larger states having earlier primaries will create a strong advantage for well funded candidates with large organizations, allowing them to gain a large early advantage and blunt the momentum of smaller campaigns that might do well in Iowa and New Hampshire.

There is reason to believe that this decision is a direct product of the Democratic Primary fight between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Democratic Primary system is widely considered to be more representative, than the Republican Primary system, which rewards first place finishers in far greater proportion than runners up. This more inclusive Democratic primary system leaves the party open both to extended primaries and surprising results.

The party's internal decisions after the convention and after the election should be watched closely for developments which might further advantage large states and wealthier campaigns. It is possible that the Democrats have decided to use loose rules as a subtle way of becoming more like the Republicans, generating more clearly viable candidates with less expense and drama by requiring overwhelming resources to win.

reply posted on 26-8-2008 @ 05:22 PM by Secret Shadow

So fo you guys think we will see more of these states deciding that they would rather have their primaries earlier than New Hampshire and Iowa? or will the DNC be much mor firm on its rules and policies next time?

reply posted on 26-8-2008 @ 07:55 PM by Blaine91555

My thought is that they need to scrap the whole system and start over. To me it would be far more logical and fair if all Primaries were to be held on the same day just prior to the Conventions. We would all get a better look at the Candidates.

The down side would be financial, but I think that needs changing as well. I do not understand why any Candidate should be raising money. The whole process of raising money is what creates an environment ripe for abuse.

The entire process should be publicly funded with equal access to Television, Radio or Print Media. That way we would have broader choices and know the Candidates far better. If a Candidate were to get enough signatures from verified registered voters, they would be in it start to finish with equal chance to spread their message.

I believe our media should also be disallowed from endorsing Candidates except as individuals not representing their businesses. Unions should also loose the ability to endorse or get involved financially with the election process. All businesses should be barred from participation or taking any measure to influence how their employees vote.

Remove the temptation to buy elections and remove the problem.

None of the above would be difficult to implement.

[edit on 8/26/2008 by Blaine91555]

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 12:17 PM by kidflash2008

reply to post by Secret Shadow

I actually do see the primaries starting in November and December. It used to start in late February and then inched back to late January. This primary season started right after New Years. Unless they change the states or give more diverse states a say, they will move all their primaries up.

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 07:33 PM by The Vagabond

I don't know if anyone is ready to go for the big taboo and skip ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire, but they don't have to do that to have a big effect.
Feb 5 Becoming unofficial national primary day

The ever-shortening primary calendar has already claimed victims in past elections. In 2000, John McCain scored early wins in New Hampshire and Michigan, but then was quickly overwhelmed by George W. Bush, who had more money and a larger organization. In 2004, Howard Dean, who entered the primary season with what looked like Big Mo', had little time to recover from a disappointing performance in the Iowa caucuses and his infamous "scream," allowing John Kerry to coast to the nomination.

While wins in New Hampshire and Iowa can give a candidate plenty of free media, these days that may not be enough to overcome a well-prepared, well-moneyed campaign that has had ads and organization in place for months in all the states with Feb. 5 contests. The wave that Big Mo' requires would not have time to build.

It will begin with a continued rush to Feb 5, but that wont be enough for swing states whose legislatures are under the control of one party. That basically means states that are temporarily considered swing states as they transition from Red to Blue, like Colorado (moved up to Feb 5 this year, both houses of the legislature and the governor's mansion held by Dems) will seek to steer their party even further in the direction that has brought about their rise to power by pushing their primaries forward to increase their say over the presidential nomination race. They will probably aim for somewhere close to the Nevada primary. There is however no guarantee that someone won't stop them.

I suspect that this will not be allowed after 2012 however, if it is allowed then (which is less likely in my opinion if we have a Democratic incumbent in 2012). The end result that I forsee is that the parties will let the problem go just a little bit too far, then pull it back to what they consider "just far enough" in order to effectively entrench the major candidates while making it appear as though the national committees are fighting for fairness and order. What they will probably end up doing, whenever they feel things have gone far enough, is set the new Super Tuesday deadline at the 3rd Tuesday in January (between the 15th and the 21st, depending on the year), in hopes of getting the nomination clinched as quickly as possible by the strongest candidate coming in, so they can get right to work on building their platforms and warchests with a minimum of 8 months, possibly 9, before the general election.

Pages: ^^TOP^^