And why should today be any different from any other day?
Why not? Is this thread only for Democrats from Michigan?
You don’t disclose your location. I’m just wondering if where you live influences what you say in your post.
Of course not. Exactly the opposite in fact. Carol specified three states she/he feels should also be punished. Where Carol votes could have a very strong influence on that opinion.
I read her comments as being more slanted by politics than location.
Ah. Question answered.
Location does not influence Carol Stream’s opinions. Her chief influence is conservatism…conservatism and obstinance…conservatism and obstinance… Her two influences are conservatism and obstinance…and ruthless ox-goring… Her three weapons are conservatism, obstinance, and ox-goring…and an almost fanatical dislike of Democrats… Her four…no… Amongst her weapons… Amongst her weaponry…are such diverse elements as conservatism, obstinance, ox-goring…and an almost fanatical dislike of Democrats
I’ll start again . . .
Um, no, I was just naming three big states that came to mind as far as electoral votes. If the Democrats want to give up Florida and now Michigan, more power to 'em, I say. NY and CA would be even better.
Okay.
On the subject of the OP I’m pretty doubtful that the DNC will actually keep those delegates stripped. Eventually it’ll come around because it doesn’t want to actively alienate those voters.
The other choice would be voting “none of the above” and picking a third (or fourth, or fifth) party candidate.
The point of primaries, etc., is for the parties to know what candidates the nation as a whole wants. I don’t know why the DNC wants that limited.
Unlike what Kang and Kodos would have you believe, we don’t actually live in a two-party country. You don’t have to vote for one of the major candidates.
In reality, this means that if a major party were to do something as stupid as not letting most people who support them vote in their own primary, another party would pop up in place to siphon off the disgruntled party members, and take a large part of the restrictive party with it.
I don’t think it’s that they want input limited, so much as they don’t want high population states to co-opt the primary process by moving their election days up… 3 or 4 high population states can set the tone for the entire primary cycle very early in the process, before there has been much campaigning.
While I’m no big fan of the primary process, it makes sense to have low population states early on, so that no candidate builds an insurmountable lead at the start, when you’re really just starting to get a feel for who they are.
Don’t forget that this is a ridiculous endless cycle. Everyone wants to be first first FIRST!!!111 and eventually we’ll wind up choosing the President in 2020 in 2016. It’s pathetic and we ought to just have the primaries on the same day in every state.
You think I’m joking.
The delegates mean nothing. It’s been many moons since a major party convention has came down to a delegate head count to determine the nomination (1976 comes to mind). By the time the conventions have rolled around, both parties will have appointed their winners and the conventions will be feel good coronations for the candiates
So, Florida and Michigan having earlier primaries allow them to flex their muscle by setting a tone for the rest of the campaign; far beyond what their delegates could accomplish at the convention. It’s a good move…
Under your system, Clinton would have lost in '92. Buchanan would have had the GOP nod in '96. McCain would have the GOP nomination in 2000. (I know you Bush haters would have loved this)
I agree that we should start out with small states, but what they same TWO states always and forever? Rotate the two states every cycle…
Uh, what? You say that changing the day automatically changes the result? Why? There’s no logical reason to assume that it will always, usually, or even often be the case. Canidates will have to campaign longer, but by the same token will have a chance to show their stuff.
Personally, I don’t like primaries, and think we ought to go with the old system where the states sent electors. The electors often chose better canidates, and emerged with a more interesting ticket. Likewise, there was more opportunity for shake-ups and split parties. All of which I think is a good thing.
To be fair, people who are named George probably shouldn’t be involved in the process, either…a tradition that stems from King George III all the way to…well, this time-stamp…
Mr. Washington excluded.
If the states had guts, they could pass a law preventing a party from fielding a candidate in the general election if it did not accept their delegates chosen by the primary. The parties need the states more than the states need the parties.
What joke? I see nothing wrong with that. Further, I’d have (all) the primaries close to the general election. The candidates would campain for the primaries, then those who make the cut would campain for the general. The committies would just do as they’re told and run their winners in the primaries. Any voter would vote for the candidate of their choice.
Oops, that might leave out the college.