In other Democracy-related news, the USofA’s Democratic National Committee’s Rules & Bylaws Committe has voted that millions of Florida Democrats’ ballots will be thrown out if they are cast on January 29 as decreed by Florida’s Republican-dominated legislature, rather than on February 5 (or later) as required by DNC Rules.
(Note: The foregoing paragraph is actually a massively-oversimplified distortion of a complex & important election-Law-vs.-party-Rules story; but what can I tell ya, I’m just feeling Fox-Newsy today. :)
/rant mode on
Why the hell do we put up with a system that grossly overvalues Iowa? Iowa farmers insane greed is what leads to the total insanity of the feds insisting on trying to make ethanol out of corn instead of using other crops which are actually well suited and cost effective for the making of ethanol. Can we do that? No, because in order to get any support in Iowa, candidates have to support corn ethanol. And they have to do so when they’re elected to Congress in order to have any hope in Iowa. So, the rest of the country gets stuck with pretty much the worst crop for making ethanol, keeping it from actually helping prices, in order to send yet more money to the farmers, as if we weren’t doing enough to prop up food prices.
Not that Florida is much better. After all, keeping them happy is what leads to treating Cuba as pure evil while treating China as a valued friend. I’m not defending Castro here, but how can any sane human think he’s worse than the government of China? Is it too much to ask for a little consistency here?
So, in summery, remember, the point of government isn’t to force your own selfish desires and vendettas onto the rest of the nation. That way lies the death of all freedom. Please keep this in mind when you vote for someone, who, well, will probably betray everything they claimed to stand for before getting elected. But, hey, maybe we’ll get lucky and one of them will be telling the truth.
/rant mode off
Yes, but according to the article I read, the Republicans tacked on a popular voting machine “paper trail” requirement that the Dems have been pushing for, thus making it politically difficult for the Dems to vote no. And since it was inevitably going to pass anyway, they had no real motivation to take that political hit. However, that’s precisely the argument that the national Dems are making: that the Florida Dems didn’t fight hard enough to defeat this measure, even though they supposedly didn’t really want it.
It’s all very interesting. Why would a party refuse to let states set their own primaries? Why are only 4 states “allowed” to have primaries before Feb. 5th? I don’t get why they would constrain their party like that, when clearly state law trumps anything either the DNC or RNC could impose.
I suppose the point is that they think they are above state law and can super-impose their own party rules over them.
“I suppose the point is that they think they are above state law and can super-impose their own party rules over them.”
Yes, that is precisely the point & it is a point with which the United States Supreme Court has on several occasions agreed. / I’ll leave it to our Resident Lawyers to provide the proper case citations because (a) they are Experts and (b) I am Lazy :> but the general idea is that in certain instances of conflict between state statutes & party Rules involving the party’s nomination process, SCOTUS has held that the party rules supersede. (One of these, circa 1984, struck down a Connecticut election law, which Really burned my ass. :)
Granted, so far as I know a conflict specifically over a presidential primary date has not yet been so litigated. But the Principle is there, if the Court desires to apply it.
Remember, what a state party’s presidential primary does is to select, and/or apportion among aspirants to the party’s presidential nomination candidates, that state party’s Delegates (or Some of them) to the party’s National Convention. This is the quintessential Party-Nomination Matter. / Which is just the sort of Matter which SCOTUS has held is Not Necessarily subject to governance by state ~ nor, I’d say by extension, Federal ~ law.
Which raises the question Why, if the Democrats are Serious about enforcing their party-rules Calendar, don’t they quit their quibbling and just Sue the State of Florida to overturn the law which impinges on their party’s right to regulate its own nominating process? This way here see, if they win they get to comply with the DNC-mandated calendar AND keep their precious Ballot Paper Trail which Beguiled the FL Dems into voting For the odious Jan. 29 primary date to which it was Attached.
(Answer: because the FL Dems aren’t serious about holding to a Feb. 5 date as per their Rules. They want a Jan. 29 primary in order to gain Prominence but even More so, to increase Dem turnout at the state referendum set for that date, thus bolstering the “No” on conservative fiscal ballot propositions which will harm Democratic constituencies if adopted. / Source: Florida testimony at yesterday’s DNC hearing, which I watched on CSPAN, thus doubtless Tripling CSPAN’s viewing audience. :)
PS: what, nobody cares about the postponed election in Jamaica? :)
“So, in summary, remember, the point of government isn’t to force your own selfish desires and vendettas onto the rest of the nation.”
“Find out who this so-called ‘Mike’s brother Matt’ is and put him on the Terrorist Watch list. He’s obviously a subversive seeking overthrow of the American form of government.”
I keep looking…and I can’t find anything in the Constitution about primaries….or hell even political parties!
Seems they kind of just grew up on their own, and aren’t part of the government! I mean the Democratic Party even appoints “super-delegates” to their convention that aren’t elected at all!
So:
1) I really can’t see any reason/justification for the government to regulate how the parties choose their candidates.
2) The Florida Democratic Party would seem to be within their rights to completely ignore the Florida Legislature should they choose to do so. (in fact some pundits are suggesting they do just that)
3) The DNC would be perfectly within their rights to refuse to seat the Florida delegation.
4) I think the system worked fine before people started screwing with it (the DNC itself I believe) and we should go back to what worked before.
5) I think the RNC should also punish Florida Republicans (and I believe they have promised to do so).
6) If such a watch list exists Joe…you are surely already on it, and rightly so. Of course…I am too………
7) I do find the whole “I’m being oppressed by the government and my freedom of speech and civil liberies stolen” diatribe a little tiresome, since so many people are persisting in wailing about it, and none of them have been hauled off by jack-booted thugs yet….
I agree with Gahrie, it annoys me that tax payer money is wasted on primaries for the party candidates. Either the elections/selection should be handled COMPLETELY by the parties. If they want to piggyback on state elections they should have to pay a portion of the costs. Otherwise they can hold their own nominating conventions. The only thing that we as a nation have the RIGHT to is in the general election. Of course I think we shouldn’t have to use electors anymore, its anachronistic and gives unfair advantage to the smaller states.
1) Imagine Florida 2000 happening in every precinct, every year. (and you know it would)
2) It does preserve some of the power of the small states.
3) It was designed to, and potentially could, ameliorate some of the excesses of democracy (such as electors refusing to vote for a potential Hitler…who was elected democratically)
I also support the immediate repeal of the 17th Amendment, so Senators truly would represent the states once again.
I think we should keep the electoral college system. But I don’t care to debate that.
The primary system has gone crazy. The Dem leadership is just trying to stop states from repeatedly moving primaries earlier. The four states grandfathered already had very early primaries and they didn’t attempt to change that.
I would abolish binding primaries but mandate a preference vote in each state for early June (many states have local elections in June). Candidates could ask that their name appear or not.
It may be heresy but I think party leaders should pick their candidate at the convention. If party leaders can’t select a good candidate then the people sure as hell won’t do it with the present system.
The Electoral College is one of the best things htere is about the US set-up !
It is one of the most effective ways to counter the tyranny of the simple majority in that is forces all candidates to pay at least some attention to the smallerStates, lest their very few votes make the critical difference …
And the Founding Fathers who set it up did so without the actual knowledge that the country could end up with many cities of multi-million population which could overwhelm the smaller rural areas …
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
August 26th, 2007 at 4:46:57 am
/rant mode on
Why the hell do we put up with a system that grossly overvalues Iowa? Iowa farmers insane greed is what leads to the total insanity of the feds insisting on trying to make ethanol out of corn instead of using other crops which are actually well suited and cost effective for the making of ethanol. Can we do that? No, because in order to get any support in Iowa, candidates have to support corn ethanol. And they have to do so when they’re elected to Congress in order to have any hope in Iowa. So, the rest of the country gets stuck with pretty much the worst crop for making ethanol, keeping it from actually helping prices, in order to send yet more money to the farmers, as if we weren’t doing enough to prop up food prices.
Not that Florida is much better. After all, keeping them happy is what leads to treating Cuba as pure evil while treating China as a valued friend. I’m not defending Castro here, but how can any sane human think he’s worse than the government of China? Is it too much to ask for a little consistency here?
So, in summery, remember, the point of government isn’t to force your own selfish desires and vendettas onto the rest of the nation. That way lies the death of all freedom. Please keep this in mind when you vote for someone, who, well, will probably betray everything they claimed to stand for before getting elected. But, hey, maybe we’ll get lucky and one of them will be telling the truth.
/rant mode off
August 26th, 2007 at 8:53:04 am
Republican dominated legislature? The vote to do this was 115 to 1.
August 26th, 2007 at 9:41:12 am
Aren’t the Florida Dems who screamed about disenfrancising voters in 2000?
August 26th, 2007 at 1:03:23 pm
The vote to do this was 115 to 1.
Yes, but according to the article I read, the Republicans tacked on a popular voting machine “paper trail” requirement that the Dems have been pushing for, thus making it politically difficult for the Dems to vote no. And since it was inevitably going to pass anyway, they had no real motivation to take that political hit. However, that’s precisely the argument that the national Dems are making: that the Florida Dems didn’t fight hard enough to defeat this measure, even though they supposedly didn’t really want it.
August 26th, 2007 at 1:27:10 pm
It’s all very interesting. Why would a party refuse to let states set their own primaries? Why are only 4 states “allowed” to have primaries before Feb. 5th? I don’t get why they would constrain their party like that, when clearly state law trumps anything either the DNC or RNC could impose.
I suppose the point is that they think they are above state law and can super-impose their own party rules over them.
August 26th, 2007 at 4:18:55 pm
“I suppose the point is that they think they are above state law and can super-impose their own party rules over them.”
Yes, that is precisely the point & it is a point with which the United States Supreme Court has on several occasions agreed. / I’ll leave it to our Resident Lawyers to provide the proper case citations because (a) they are Experts and (b) I am Lazy :> but the general idea is that in certain instances of conflict between state statutes & party Rules involving the party’s nomination process, SCOTUS has held that the party rules supersede. (One of these, circa 1984, struck down a Connecticut election law, which Really burned my ass. :)
Granted, so far as I know a conflict specifically over a presidential primary date has not yet been so litigated. But the Principle is there, if the Court desires to apply it.
Remember, what a state party’s presidential primary does is to select, and/or apportion among aspirants to the party’s presidential nomination candidates, that state party’s Delegates (or Some of them) to the party’s National Convention. This is the quintessential Party-Nomination Matter. / Which is just the sort of Matter which SCOTUS has held is Not Necessarily subject to governance by state ~ nor, I’d say by extension, Federal ~ law.
Which raises the question Why, if the Democrats are Serious about enforcing their party-rules Calendar, don’t they quit their quibbling and just Sue the State of Florida to overturn the law which impinges on their party’s right to regulate its own nominating process? This way here see, if they win they get to comply with the DNC-mandated calendar AND keep their precious Ballot Paper Trail which Beguiled the FL Dems into voting For the odious Jan. 29 primary date to which it was Attached.
(Answer: because the FL Dems aren’t serious about holding to a Feb. 5 date as per their Rules. They want a Jan. 29 primary in order to gain Prominence but even More so, to increase Dem turnout at the state referendum set for that date, thus bolstering the “No” on conservative fiscal ballot propositions which will harm Democratic constituencies if adopted. / Source: Florida testimony at yesterday’s DNC hearing, which I watched on CSPAN, thus doubtless Tripling CSPAN’s viewing audience. :)
August 26th, 2007 at 4:26:17 pm
PS: what, nobody cares about the postponed election in Jamaica? :)
“So, in summary, remember, the point of government isn’t to force your own selfish desires and vendettas onto the rest of the nation.”
“Find out who this so-called ‘Mike’s brother Matt’ is and put him on the Terrorist Watch list. He’s obviously a subversive seeking overthrow of the American form of government.”
“Yes sir, Mr. Vice President, right away sir.”
:>
August 26th, 2007 at 5:25:24 pm
I keep looking…and I can’t find anything in the Constitution about primaries….or hell even political parties!
Seems they kind of just grew up on their own, and aren’t part of the government! I mean the Democratic Party even appoints “super-delegates” to their convention that aren’t elected at all!
So:
1) I really can’t see any reason/justification for the government to regulate how the parties choose their candidates.
2) The Florida Democratic Party would seem to be within their rights to completely ignore the Florida Legislature should they choose to do so. (in fact some pundits are suggesting they do just that)
3) The DNC would be perfectly within their rights to refuse to seat the Florida delegation.
4) I think the system worked fine before people started screwing with it (the DNC itself I believe) and we should go back to what worked before.
5) I think the RNC should also punish Florida Republicans (and I believe they have promised to do so).
6) If such a watch list exists Joe…you are surely already on it, and rightly so. Of course…I am too………
7) I do find the whole “I’m being oppressed by the government and my freedom of speech and civil liberies stolen” diatribe a little tiresome, since so many people are persisting in wailing about it, and none of them have been hauled off by jack-booted thugs yet….
August 26th, 2007 at 6:37:21 pm
I agree with Gahrie, it annoys me that tax payer money is wasted on primaries for the party candidates. Either the elections/selection should be handled COMPLETELY by the parties. If they want to piggyback on state elections they should have to pay a portion of the costs. Otherwise they can hold their own nominating conventions. The only thing that we as a nation have the RIGHT to is in the general election. Of course I think we shouldn’t have to use electors anymore, its anachronistic and gives unfair advantage to the smaller states.
August 26th, 2007 at 6:53:36 pm
Of course I think we shouldn’t have to use electors anymore, its anachronistic and gives unfair advantage to the smaller states
What you see as an unfair advantage can also be constued as protecting those small states from the large ones.
August 26th, 2007 at 8:03:34 pm
Thats what the Senate is for Jo. But the Pesident should represent the views of the entire country, and as such should be a direct popular election
August 26th, 2007 at 8:32:42 pm
I support the Electoral College:
1) Imagine Florida 2000 happening in every precinct, every year. (and you know it would)
2) It does preserve some of the power of the small states.
3) It was designed to, and potentially could, ameliorate some of the excesses of democracy (such as electors refusing to vote for a potential Hitler…who was elected democratically)
I also support the immediate repeal of the 17th Amendment, so Senators truly would represent the states once again.
August 26th, 2007 at 9:32:46 pm
I think we should keep the electoral college system. But I don’t care to debate that.
The primary system has gone crazy. The Dem leadership is just trying to stop states from repeatedly moving primaries earlier. The four states grandfathered already had very early primaries and they didn’t attempt to change that.
I would abolish binding primaries but mandate a preference vote in each state for early June (many states have local elections in June). Candidates could ask that their name appear or not.
It may be heresy but I think party leaders should pick their candidate at the convention. If party leaders can’t select a good candidate then the people sure as hell won’t do it with the present system.
August 26th, 2007 at 9:58:12 pm
I also support the immediate repeal of the 17th Amendment, so Senators truly would represent the states once again.
And while you’re at it, repeal the 16th that those darn Progressives ratified. We already tossed the 18th.
August 26th, 2007 at 10:14:03 pm
Jo:
I’m perfectly willing to repeal the 16th while we’re at it.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:03:01 pm
The Electoral College is one of the best things htere is about the US set-up !
It is one of the most effective ways to counter the tyranny of the simple majority in that is forces all candidates to pay at least some attention to the smallerStates, lest their very few votes make the critical difference …
And the Founding Fathers who set it up did so without the actual knowledge that the country could end up with many cities of multi-million population which could overwhelm the smaller rural areas …