What is up with this? The DNC has basically told the Florida Democrats that they can't vote for the nominee if they hold their primary on January 29th like the Republicans will do. A state law was passed to give Florida a better say in who gets nominated in the primaries and now it would appear that the DNC wants to, uh oh, disenfranchise the fourth most populous state. I say we should count the votes, you know every vote should be counted.

In all seriousness, I really think that the argument of:

article
The calendar was designed to preserve the traditional role that Iowa and New Hampshire have played in selecting the nominee, while adding two states with more racial and geographic diversity to influential early slots.

Is idiotic.

I'm not a Democrat, but if I were, I would not be stupid and let insignificant states on the national level unduly influence the nominee. They should have the biggest states they can voting the earliest, that way they can figure out who would have the best chance of winning that state in the general election.

In any event, the state Democrats have pretty much zero power in Florida. The state government is dominated by Republicans. The state Democrats are being punished by the DNC for something they had no control over. Way to fight for the little guys, DNC!

Article .

Boy sometimes I hate being a Democrat.

I think this one-upmanship between states for the dates for their primaries is doing more harm to the election than good.

As a result of several states already pushing their elections up, other states have pushed theirs up - some of them mandatorily because their state constitution declares they have to be X days before other ones.

It is within the realm of possibility that one of the first primaries (or caucuses or whatever each state calls them) could be in late 2007 Decemberish.

The whole thing about moving the primaries to a sooner date kills the time each party has to really inspect their own candidates. Those of us that are politically engaged might not think that there's many folks out there who don't know the dirt of each candidate, but I think you'd be surprised.

By moving the dates up, we may have selected both parties' candidates as early as March - or even February. That means the potential exists to merely elect the most well-known candidate instead of the best choice to win.

It seems like a bad idea all around, and will probably create two candidates that are much weaker on the issues but more superficially well-known by the voting public.

I personally would prefer a super-duper primary election one month before the conventions, where every state votes on the same date. But without changing state constitutions, that isn't going to happen.

So yeah, I think that both parties should resist the urge for earlier primaries. Many of them are already too soon, and party candidates are selected too early as it is.

This whole primary juggling thing is a bit annoying, though I can see why people are tired of an Iowa stranglehold. A national primary would be neat, with more of a national focus.

mapaghimagsik
This whole primary juggling thing is a bit annoying, though I can see why people are tired of an Iowa stranglehold. A national primary would be neat, with more of a national focus.

A national primary sounds like a pretty good idea, but only if it's an open primary.

I don't vote in primaries, because in my state they're "closed". That is to say that you MUST vote within party lines. Since I don't think that's a just way to do things, I abstain and vote in the general election.

warren

mapaghimagsik
This whole primary juggling thing is a bit annoying, though I can see why people are tired of an Iowa stranglehold. A national primary would be neat, with more of a national focus.

A national primary sounds like a pretty good idea, but only if it's an open primary.

I don't vote in primaries, because in my state they're "closed". That is to say that you MUST vote within party lines. Since I don't think that's a just way to do things, I abstain and vote in the general election.

Unfortunately, its our current situation. I vote in the primaries to try and change things from the way they are.

I don't think open primaries are a good idea. I've heard them suggested a few times and that just seems ultimately like a unofficial election.

The primaries are used for each party to nominate a candidate for the November election. How much sense does it make to let Republicans vote for Democrats or vice versa?

We already have a problem with the two main parties being too conservative without skewing the candidates away from their bases.

And believe me, I feel your pain. I'm not registered as either party, so my votes on primary day only go to referendums. But if I'm not willing to call myself a Republican or a Democrat, why should I be able to choose their candidates?

If there's a candidate you do want to vote for, switch to that party and vote for them. If they don't win, you can always switch out of the party. But then that requires the voters to take the steps to create their own "open election", and requires more work for the voter.

That's not to say I don't want to see some election reform. I like the idea of instant runoff voting, and would like to see it used in primaries and elections. I think it would allow for more "dark horse" candidates to win nominations and elecitons, and certainly open the door for third party nominees.

Ronson
I don't think open primaries are a good idea.

Yeah, I never really understood the point of an open primary.

Vindibudd

Ronson
I don't think open primaries are a good idea.

Yeah, I never really understood the point of an open primary.

Me neither, it just encourages people in states where their party is sure to lose to try to muck up the other party's candidates by voting against front runners.

bobhhh

Vindibudd

Ronson
I don't think open primaries are a good idea.

Yeah, I never really understood the point of an open primary.

Me neither, it just encourages people in states where their party is sure to lose to try to muck up the other party's candidates by voting against front runners.

A person in my family is registered to the "other" party to do just that. Politics isn't a nice game.

The point is, why shouldn't I have the right to vote for whatever candidate (or non-candidate) I want? Maybe I'd rather have someone from the other party... who is anyone to tell me otherwise?

Well if we're gonna wander out here -- I'd like to see proportional voting and end this two party nonsense. I think it would take us less to the extremes. and suddenly pandering to the base might not be a winning strategy

I would like to vote for a person not a party.

And I would like my vote to count as much as somebody's in Wyoming, but the electoral college prevents that. State by state races are inneficient and often conflict with the popular vote. You should only have to win votes, not states.

bobhhh
I would like to vote for a person not a party.

And I would like my vote to count as much as somebody's in Wyoming, but the electoral college prevents that. State by state races are inneficient and often conflict with the popular vote. You should only have to win votes, not states.

An argument can be made that if you only used the popular vote, politicians would only have to cater to the larger cities to win. If they did that, a lot of rural areas would be ignored - to our detriment, I believe.

Though the current system is Midwest Farmer skewed because of the Iowa Caucus and the overrepresentation of the less populated states.

I guess I don't have a solution that addresses that.