Pissed off in Florida.

[Cyrano]

The Florida Democratic Party decided to push our primaries up to the end of January. For some reason, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has threatened to not seat Florida delegates at the Dem convention if they push up the primaries.

Florida is the fourth largest state. We got screwed in the 2000 election and then got mocked as being idiots. We had to put up with Jeb Bush as our governor for eight years. The reason for pushing up the primary date was to give us some say in who the Dem nominee would be. But for some reason, the DNC doesn't want this to happen.

Overall, I think our primary system and our electoral college system both stink and are in need of change. But I fail to see why Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina get to all but wrap up the nominating process before the other states get a chance to have a say in the process.

Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Maybe the DNC is worried that an earlier primary may allow someone

other than ITS choice for the nomination to be elected.

[RubyDuby in GA]

2. No explanation

I definitely think that all primaries should be held on the same day. I agree that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina get too much of a say.

Why the hell should I care who some pig farmer in Iowa says should be president? Are they more American than I am sitting here in lowly old Georgia - you know Georgia, one of the original colonies? Should we vote in order of statehood? Sounds good to me...

[tsuki]

13. Here! Here!

[Ravy]

3. A spread out primary season...

allows for the field to be whittled down some during the process. If Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter would have had to spread their resources out over 50 states before the first vote was cast then they would not have been able to compete. However, by having some smaller primaries first, they were able to focus their message on a smaller number of voters.

As people dropped out of the race, then resources (donations) get diverted to some of these previously smaller campaigns and they are able to compete nationally.

Not everyone can be first, and I would be in favor of them announcing 4 new states (regionally) that would get the first votes in 2012. And another 4 could do it in 2016.

However, now, with the candidates focusing their resources in Iowa, New Hampshire, and SC, moving the primaries around only helps the well-funded candidates. There has been a game of leap-frog created and it cannot continue.

I live in Florida, myself. I think we should consider the vote in January as a referendum, and then hold caucuses later to decide who gets the votes after the field has been narrowed down. Florida's delegation could make a big difference if the real choices were limited to the top two or three candidates (by the time the caucus took place). However, with the referendum vote, we could still express our sentiments among all of the candidates when momentum would do the smaller candidates the most good.

[Cyrano]

4. Some of the Dem candidates spend a lot of time fund raising in Florida.

The next time one of them shows up asking for money, I intend to ask "Where's my vote?"

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. How about intrinsic fairness?

The early primary states are all small - so it is easier for candidates with fewer resources to campaign successfully in them. By the same token, a candidate with a huge warchest can overwhelm a poorly funded candidate in a big state.

It is entirely possible for a candidate to win the bigger states deeper into the campaign and knock out the winners of the small, early primaries. Frontloading the primaries with big states is nothing less than an attempt to favor the candidate with the biggest bankroll - and 'bankroll' can be taken literally. Those candidates are most heavily funded by corporations and big ticket donors. Put California, Florida and New York first, and there's no point to even having any other primaries.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cyrano]

10. Dear Beaverhausen: With all due respect, WTF are you talking about with

your "Haven't you done enough damage down there?" comment.

If you're referring to the 2000 election, it wasn't Floridians who put Bush in the White House. It was a typical Karl Rove operation that included voter caging, turning minorities away from the polls, Tom DeLay's troops showing up down here in front of the TV cameras demanding that the recount be stopped, and many, many, "lost" votes. And then the SCOTUS drove in the final coffin nail.

It wasn't just Floridians who got screwed. The whole country got screwed.

[Beaverhausen]

12. Yes we all got screwed.

Read the other posts and many other threads on this topic. The DNC is within its rights.

and I live in California, who's primary is usually very late. We also don't have a say in who the nominee is. (Ours was moved up recently, but not ahead of the first few states.)

[flashl]

7. Following madfloridians threads DNC actions and reasons are explained

DNC offered help

DNC members Jon Ausman and Allan Katz of Tallahassee and Janee Murphy of Tampa said Dean was conciliatory and offered DNC help for the state to find a way of picking delegates after Feb. 5 that would still offer maximum participation for the party rank-and-file.

"That's what I'm worried about, the average voter on the street who doesn't know about rules and technicalities," said Murphy, the state party secretary. "It was a nice, civil discussion with the chairman but we've got to remember that it's about the voters who want their ballots to count."

---

The Democratic National Committee said they (Florida) are within their rights.

"Florida has the right to determine its primary date. However, the Supreme Court determined more than 25 years ago that the Democratic Party has the legal right to establish the rules by which they select and seat delegates to the National Convention. We continue to hope that Florida will do the right thing and come up with a plan that's in compliance with the rules the DNC and its members from Florida voted for," said DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton"

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CC]

9. The Florida Dems knew that if the

date was pushed up they would lose their delegates at the convention. This isn't something new that was sprung on them at the last minute. They were warned before the legislature ever voted. I don't have anything handy and there are a lot of people that know more about it than I do but my understanding is it has something to do with rules in the DNC that they knew they were breaking. They were told that the rules would not be changed just for them and were told what would happen. Maybe if more than one Dem in your state legislature had voted against it the DNC would of tried working harder with them since then it would be a completely rupug forced issue.



.

[Cyrano]

11. So I guess you're comfortable with Iowa, New Hampshire and

South Carolina picking our nominee?

My point actually goes way beyond Florida. When three states, that aren't necessarily representative of the majority of the Democratic Party, have such a disproportionate influence on the outcome, something is drastically wrong and in need of repair.

[CC]

14. I didn't say that and no I am not.

But it wouldn't be any better for my state or other smaller states to have Florida (or California or others big states) pick our nominee either. I wish there was a way to have all states have their primaries on the same day but that does bring in the money question. Whatever is done needs to be worked out with in the party and not set up as a pissing match between the state and the DNC. No one state should have the power to choose the nominee for all the rest. After watching so many states move up their primaries this time something really needs to be done. In a perfect world candidates would get a certain amount of free air-time (they are public airwaves)and fair coverage else where no matter how small their campaign is. That doesn't do much for travel expenses of candidates though but would take the expense of buying commercials out. Maybe have all funds raised pooled then split equally between all candidates. That would at least spread the money out and not make the winner the one that the money people choose for the rest of us. My thoughts on it may be stupid and unworkable, I don't know but I do agree something needs to change.

BTW I was from Florida and still have family there. I don't think it is full of loons as said above but it does have its problems politically. I blame that on the repugs more than anyone else and I know the Dems there do have a hard battle trying to get things fixed but why blame the DNC when they were willing to try to work something out. I know my family still there gets pretty frustrated with Florida politics but they do keep fighting.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. I've never really understood just how small state early primaries

'select' the nominee. Is it that people don't vote for their preference, but instead want to jump on a 'winner' bandwagon? If a state with 5 delegates chooses X, why should a later state with 25 choose X over Y - it would settle out to be X - 5, and Y - 25 when they're all counted.

Why, exactly, does winning NH make someone the presumptive nominee?

[ieoeja]

15. Because that is what everyone agreed to. Including the Florida delegates in the DNC.

How did the state legislature move up their primary? Someone wrote a bill in the House then submitted it to the appropriate committee where it was debated and voted on. It was then moved to the floor of the House where the entire membership of the House got to vote on it. The same thing was done in the Senate. The joint bill was then forwarded to the Governor who signed it.

What did NOT happen was the city council of Miami voting to move up the primary then telling the rest of Florida that is the way it is.

Each of the Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Reform, Conneticut for Lieberman, etc parties also have procedures for changing their individual party's rules. Each party has a different set of rules and procedures. And if you want to change those rules, you must follow the correct procedures to do so.

Instead of asking Florida members of the DNC and RNC to seek a change in their respective parties rules, Republicans and Democrats elected to the Florida legislature decided to just ignore those rules. The state legislature in Florida can no more make up new rules for the Democratic and Republican parties than the city council of Miami could have moved up the state primary.

Can the legislators in all 50 states prevent a Green Ralph Nader and Libertarian Ron Paul from siphoning votes from the Democratic and Republican parties respectively by requiring Green delegates from their states to vote for the winner of the Democratic primary and Libertarian delegates to vote for the winner of the Republican primary? Of course not. Well, they can't make up rules for the Republican and Democratic parties either. The parties make that determination themselves.