Democrats scramble to prevent Florida primary election fiasco: "SERIOUS PROBLEM"

[DeepModem Mom]

Democrats scramble to prevent Florida primary election fiasco
An early contest could shift delegates to less-popular presidential candidates -- or discount their votes for the party's 2008 nominee altogether.
By Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writer
May 20, 2007

....It sounds like just another wacky political dust-up from the land of hanging chads and butterfly ballots. But the problem is considered so serious that Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and state party officials are embroiled in frantic behind-the-scenes negotiations to stave off a potential disaster that could quickly spread across the nation.

The trouble sprang from a decision by Florida lawmakers to jump to an earlier spot on the primary election calendar, following the lead of other big states tired of voting too late to have a meaningful say in choosing each party's nominee.

But whereas California, Illinois and many other states are moving to set their primaries for Feb. 5, Florida opted to leap ahead to Jan. 29 — a week earlier than allowed under Democratic Party rules. And that has triggered mayhem.

National Democratic officials have vowed to enforce party rules that strip delegates from any state that moves too early in the calendar, and also from candidates who campaign in those states. The penalties were meant to stop states from continually leapfrogging each other in a race to be among the first to vote.

As things stand now, Clinton, Obama and other prominent contenders may not be eligible to win any Florida delegates, though the state offers a compartively large share of the total needed to win the Democratic nomination. Under one scenario, it could turn out that no Democratic candidate gets any Florida delegates....

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-florida20may20,0,5268295.story?coll=la-home-center

[Bitwit1234]

1. I think these states

want to jump the gun because of the election machines. Think about it. They want to be sure that the machines or paper ballots and paper trails have not had a chance to take effect as yet. Thereby controlling the outcome...and placing a candidate they (repubs because the control the elections boards etc) want for the democrats/republicans in place.

[WCGreen]

2. They should schedule ten dates of five primaries....

One form each population tier...

The states would pull from a lottery each election year to see which primary date they would hold their election...

You would separate the states out by population...

So California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, New York, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina would be in the top tier.... Those states would hold a lottery to see who was in the first set of rounds, and then repeat the process...

You continue to divide the states by tier until all states are awarded a primary/caucus date...

It isn't fair that New Hampshire and Iowa get disproportional attention...

But, that would be way to logical for the political people to accept...

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. I have a solution

nationalise the fucking primaries


We all vote the same day

[Eurobabe]

5. What a novel idea!

And while we are at it, let's get rid of that old dinosaur called the electoral college. I'm with you!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. There's a reason that's not the case.

When the system started, smaller states like Iowa and New Hampshire were bitching that their states' voices would not be heard and their issues would go unaddressed, as they'd get trampled by the larger states. It's the reason we have a Senate and the electoral college system too.

[burrowowl]

4. KICK!

[Orangepeel]

6. Well, it wasn't a secret that this was going to be a problem.

:shrug:

It wasn't like they set the primary and THEN read the rules.