« But I'm sure scientists use words like "death spiral" all the time | Main | Filthy foul-mouthed fem-blogger links of the day »

August 25, 2007

The Least Insane Choice

By Neil the Ethical Werewolf

There's a whole lot that's wrong with the presidential primary system, but the DNC attempted to provide a slight improvement this year by moving Nevada and South Carolina forward.  Part of the thinking was that it would compensate for the whiteness of Iowa and New Hampshire by bringing in Nevada's Hispanics and the large number of black voters in the SC Democratic Party.  It would keep the nominating process in small states, so that the election wouldn't just fall to whoever could raise enough millions to hire an army of organizers and bomb a big media market with ads.  The continued prominence of Iowa and New Hampshire are pretty much indefensible, of course, and I hope that gets revisited next time. 

So the DNC's decision to punish Florida if it keeps trying to leapfrog the schedule is the right one.  Florida knew that they were breaking the schedule when they moved up, and they did it anyway.  At this point, the DNC can either threaten to deprive Florida of delegates, or watch the whole primary calendar disintegrate as states leapfrog each other and schedule surprise primaries for the day after tomorrow. 

One of the more annoying pieces of rhetoric in this comes from Florida Democrats waving the bloody shirt about the 2000 election:

So with time running out before today's showdown in Washington, Florida Democrats started something this week they never bothered with when the law rescheduling the primary was being debated, passed and signed: a full-court public relations offensive.

Party leaders and members of Congress dispatched indignant e-mails to voters, staged conference calls with reporters and even threatened to take Dean to court.

They blamed the Republicans who control the Florida Legislature and invoked the biggest bogeyman of all: the 2000 presidential recount.

''We're going to fight to have Florida Democratic votes counted,'' said U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, the state's top Democrat. ``It's always been a top priority for the Democratic National Committee to protect the rights of every eligible American to vote, and we hope the DNC is going to continue to honor this right.''

But a major part of what happened in 2000 involved the Florida Democratic Party screwing the rest of the country -- without Democratic election supervisor Theresa LePore's butterfly ballot, we'd be living in a far better universe. And on that note, let me deliver the earnest snark of Chris Bowers from back when Florida moved its primary forward in violation of the DNC's schedule:

Florida is doing this, I guess, because they feel they don't already have enough say who becomes the next president. No state has suffered more than Florida from the indifference of presidential nominees to non-swing states. If Florida didn't have an early primary, it is highly doubtful that the presidential nominee of either party would ever spend a dime in the state, much less visit. It has been decades since Florida was the deciding state in a presidential election. This is truly a shame, because the air-tight voting systems in Florida fuel more confidence in the hearts of voters than those of any other state in the nation. While in other states, there really isn't a way to ever know who won an election, when people take office in Florida, you know that that person truly has the will of the electorate behind him or her. If more of our elections were like Florida's, then there wouldn't be any need for further election reform in the United States.

August 25, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

If the DNC is really trying to enforce discipline then they should remove all of the delegates from any state that holds its primary before Feb 5th.

They're going to look pretty stupid if other states don't move their primary schedule back

Posted by: Phil | Aug 25, 2007 4:20:44 PM

Yeah, the madness has to be stopped. A rotating schedule fixed centrally (not by the states) would probably be best.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 25, 2007 4:23:21 PM

Didn't see Phil's post. Half the delegates is enough, I imagine.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 25, 2007 4:26:51 PM

Sorry, I'm with Florida here. The problem is Iowa and New Hampshire. They are small, unimportant, unrepresentative states, and yet they get to choose the nominee and the voters in big states are disenfranchised. Florida, in contrast, is trying to solve the problem by forcing the party to come up with a fairer system.

Posted by: Dilan Esper | Aug 25, 2007 8:31:33 PM

What Florida's doing isn't forcing a solution, though, as it knows. It's just solving its own problem, while making the problem overall worse. But chances are it will just be insane, that the penalties won't be enforced.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 25, 2007 8:49:00 PM

Sanpete:

The only way to solve this problem is to make it worse. The parties will do everything they can to keep Iowa and New Hampshire where they are, and to disenfranchise large states, because it makes it easier to control the process and because of wrongheaded beliefs of the supposed superiority of retail politics and the intellect of small state voters. (And by the way, I don't care if all that is actually true-- it is simply unacceptable to tell the tens of millions of people of California that they should have no say in selecting the President. The point of an election is to make the votes count, even if it means the campaign will cost a bit more or people won't get to do so many town hall meetings.)

The only way this problem gets solved is to have the big states gang up on Iowa and New Hampshire and make it clear that they are going to keep screwing up the system unless and until voters in large states get enfranchised.

Posted by: Dilan Esper | Aug 25, 2007 11:10:35 PM

Dilan, what you say makes sense, but I think having a couple small states with a mix of people go first is a good idea. It shouldn't always be the same states, and big states could follow shortly enough to make a big difference, also on a rotating basis.

As for the idea of making the system worse to force improvement, I'm not sure if that's the motive or not, or whether it will speed up the process. We'll see, I guess.

I'm guessing one reason Edwards supporters are looking at this closely is that they want Iowa to have maximum impact this year.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 25, 2007 11:47:01 PM

No, small states shouldn't go first unless you wanted to do it by random selection (in other words, large states would sometimes go first too). Otherwise, you are diluting the votes of large states, and it is especially unfair to a state like New York or California, where the votes don't count in the general election either due to the electoral college.

The truth is, I don't think Iowa and New Hampshire work as advertised anyway (except to ensure that everyone supports environmentally destructive ethanol subsidies). In point of fact, the campaigns spend just as much money on Iowa and New Hampshire as they would placing ads in big states (just ask yourself how McCain went through all that money).

The small states already have an electoral advantage in the electoral college because they all get credit for 2 senators. There's no reason they should get any preference in the primary. And yes, I think the reason the states are moving up their primaries in defiance of the rules is to force change and to give bigger states a voice.

Posted by: Dilan Esper | Aug 26, 2007 1:13:28 AM

In point of fact, the campaigns spend just as much money on Iowa and New Hampshire as they would placing ads in big states (just ask yourself how McCain went through all that money).

If you spend as much in Iowa as California, you get several times the effect. Edwards can focus on Iowa to get a boost, but he couldn't do the same thing with the same funds to similar effect in California. Having a couple small states a couple weeks before some big states states won't rob those big states of their influence. And this isn't for the benefit of the small states. It's so candidates with less money can get a start.

I don't think Florida is concerned about the influence of any state but Florida.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 26, 2007 1:43:32 AM

If they go though with it I'm pretty sure the Republicans will have fun with it. "40 years after the Voting Rights Act was passed over the objections of Southern Democrats the Democratic party is disenfranchising voters in the South Again." No doubt by the time the 08 cycle's Rove equivalent is done there will be flyers circulating in minority neighborhoods just before the general stating Florida's votes will not be counted by order of the Democratic party. A little bit of truth mixed with a lotta lie.

I'm pretty sure this is a bad decision by the DNC, bordering on a criminally stupid one.

Posted by: Don | Aug 26, 2007 4:40:47 AM

The problem with adding NV which is where I live, this is largely a CONSERVATIVE state, and yes I am a conservative, you may be kicking yourself in the butt by doing this!

Posted by: Madison | Aug 26, 2007 9:13:58 AM

Everything they do seems designed to keep the nominating system ENTIRELY under the control of conservative states. Even when they reform, they prioritize conservative primaries over liberal ones. Given their hatred of anything to the left of kevin drum, I can't imagine that's a coincidence.

Posted by: soullite | Aug 26, 2007 11:37:10 AM

If you spend as much in Iowa as California, you get several times the effect. Edwards can focus on Iowa to get a boost, but he couldn't do the same thing with the same funds to similar effect in California.

BS. The campaigns burn through money in Iowa. They would also burn through it in California. We've had plenty of dark horse candidates over the years in our statewide elections.

And also, bear in mind, 99 percent of the time, the establishment candidate wins the nomination anyway, in both parties. You have to go back at least as far as Carter to find a circumstance where it didn't happen (Clinton, for your information, was FAVORED two years out). So obviously, Iowa and New Hampshire aren't helping the underdog the way everyone says they do.

And this isn't for the benefit of the small states. It's so candidates with less money can get a start.

This is bad, dangerous, undemocratic reasoning. We could accomplish lots of things, I suppose, by refusing to allow certain votes to count. But that ignores that the voters should have a right to have their votes count.

A California Democrat should have his vote count because he is an American citizen and a member of the party in good standing. Policy arguments as to why a process that doesn't count his or her vote is "better" are irrelevant.

Having a couple small states a couple weeks before some big states states won't rob those big states of their influence.

I will believe that when Iowa and New Hampshire start treating the issue of going first as of no importance.

Posted by: Dilan Esper | Aug 26, 2007 6:13:44 PM

Dilan, part of what you're saying doesn't make sense mathematically or physically. Money and time spent in Iowa or some other small state goes further and has more effect than the same money or time spent in a larger state. That candidates also spend a lot of money in the small state doesn't change that.

Carter is a good example of someone who used this to his advantage. It may help Edwards this time, not because Edwards is a dark horse but because he is raising less money.

Again, no state is being disenfranchised (by having a couple small states first). This isn't about not counting votes in California.

Having a couple small states a couple weeks before some big states states won't rob those big states of their influence.

I will believe that when Iowa and New Hampshire start treating the issue of going first as of no importance.

To clarify, it won't rob the larger states of their influence.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 26, 2007 6:30:53 PM

Carter is a good example of someone who used this to his advantage. It may help Edwards this time, not because Edwards is a dark horse but because he is raising less money.

Again, no state is being disenfranchised (by having a couple small states first). This isn't about not counting votes in California.

Carter is the only example. And Carter was 32 years ago. Right after reforms were passed to make the primaries matter. And the reason the favorites have won every year thereafter is because the parties and elites have such control over the process that they are able to call the shots. (By the way, the parties LOVE Iowa and New Hampshire because party organization can produce votes in smaller states. You'd actually have more chance of an upset starting in California.)

And yes, it is about disenfranchising California. If you don't go first, you don't count. Indeed, if this wasn't true, nobody would be so concerned about making sure California doesn't go first.

The entire mode of thinking that says we will rig the vote to make any small state count beyond its weight in the electoral college or delegate count is illegitimate, because there's no way of rigging that without disenfranchising the big states. My vote should count, and count fully, I don't take kindly to arguments that I'm REALLY better off if it doesn't.

Posted by: Dilan Esper | Aug 26, 2007 10:20:23 PM

By the way, the parties LOVE Iowa and New Hampshire because party organization can produce votes in smaller states. You'd actually have more chance of an upset starting in California.

I don't understand this point. Who are the parties supporting in the primaries?

If you don't go first, you don't count.

Not true at all. The winners of the first states don't always win. If they did, we could just limit the primaries to one state, rotated.

If your premises were correct, I'd buy your conclusion, but they aren't.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 26, 2007 10:49:31 PM

It isn't that the winners always win in Iowa or New Hampshire. It is that starting with small states privileges organization, which the party has control over, rather than voters who decide based on advertisements, which the party has no control over. For this reason, the favorite always wins (except in 1976), and that's why the parties want to continue the dominance of the small states.

Posted by: Dilan Esper | Aug 27, 2007 2:07:32 AM

I still don't see how the parties control any organization relevant to privileging one primary candidate over another. What organization? Which candidates are the parties supporting now?

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 27, 2007 2:30:06 AM

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘


托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

Posted by: judy | Oct 11, 2007 7:08:06 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.