Thursday, March 6, 2008

Why There Is no Fair way To Fix Michigan And Florida's Primaries

There is a growing buzz about whether to count the votes in Michigan and Florida. There really is only one logical answer to this question. NO! I am sorry voters of those states, but you were duped by your state’s DC. However, without scrapping the whole thing and starting from scratch, there can be no truly democratic process. Really, even scrapping and starting anew would be borderline unfair.

To catch up anybody who doesn’t know what is going on, at the end of 2006 beginning of 2007, there was a rush of states who were all trying to push up their primary elections. These states felt going later in the year they would have less influence. They petitioned the National committee. The national committee took a vote, made a contract and said, “no you must hold your primaries no earlier then said date.” That is how we got "Super Teusday". Candidates were all informed that if a state violated the primary date rule, they would be disqualified and their delegates would not count. They were urged to not campaign in those states. Most followed the suggestion and didn’t even get their name on the ballot. Only the craftiest, underhanded, Washington veterans saw it as an Ace in the hole if the elections should be close.

In a really non-democratic move, two states violated the organizations bylaws and held their primary earlier then the date set. So the punishment outlined in the contract came into effect. Cut to the end of the year, the race is close, and Florida and Michigan now want their votes to count. The DNC is saying, “either hold another election at your own expense or sit down and shut up.” The two states are saying that they are not responsible for paying for the huge expense to hold another primary. That is where we are at now.

First, I am here to tell you that it is very late in the year and every state is in play for the democrats and it is going to come down to the wire. (No small part in thanks to my fellow idiots from Ohio proved once again that they have the intellect of an average trained dog and are very good at name recognition.) So Florida and Michigan’s assumption that they would have no impact on the election is debunked. Secondly, they signed that contract; they knew what the result of holding a “mock” primary would be. Why the outrage when the contract is enforced. Lastly, If the state committees are really concerned about the voters rights, they should be happy to pay for the new elections. Hey they can ask Hillary to loan it to them.

This whole thing looks like some child who was told not to stay out all night or she will get grounded. Then she does stay out all night and guess what? That’s right, she gets grounded. She then tries to plead a case that, “it is not fair.” What “isn’t fair” is circumventing the rules as if you have some special privilege. The collective have all agreed, some reluctantly, that a spread out primary with key states and dates going in a certain order is the best way to conduct their candidate nomination. If Florida and Michigan were allowed to move up, what would stop all of the states from moving up equally. Simply logic really. It’s about learning to be patient and waiting your turn.

Here are some hard reasons for not counting the current delegates by the results of the offending election. Many people who might have wanted to vote for the other candidates didn’t go to the poles because their candidate wasn’t on the ballot. What about those people’s votes. Many didn’t go because they understood the rules and knew their vote would not count. As a matter of fact, going to the pole would raise certain limit requirements for future candidates to get on the ballot. That in turn equates to higher costs to get elected. Since many states require candidates to get valid signature based on how many people voted in the previous primary, you might reduce hinder a poorer candidate from entering. Not that I think a single voter in any of those states think that deep into it. But even if just one did. Only one candidate campaigned in the delinquent state. Oddly enough a self-serving spoiled bitch. But hey, “I’m just sayin’”. It isn’t bad enough to award the guilty, but to punish the law biding is another travesty all together.

Even re-holding elections is kind of a party foul. Lets face it, winning campaigns is as much about spending your contributions effectively as it is actually having a good, honest message. Scratch that, because mosts voters are well trained button pushing monkeys, effective budgeting is more important. If you throw new unscheduled election into the mix, are effectively forcing the candidates to re-organize planned spending. In a state where one of the candidates already spent money, the other candidate is at a severe disadvantage. These people thought they were done and many tuned out the debates and the election rhetoric that might have changed their opinions.

There are so many other deeper reason why Florida and Michigan just need to scratch this year and next time listen. The whole thing orchestrated by the Clinton side has an underhanded, divisive, crooked, typical Washington feel to it. But I wouldn’t expect anything less. Slit the delegates down the middle, dish them out, and lets get everybody closer to that magic number.
The only thing worse then having no elections at all is to have corrupt and unfair elections. In the later people don't know they should become active.

No comments:

Counter text

New counter