There are good and bad things about both ways of doing it. This year, Ohio’s primary will probably not mean anything, just like Texas and Pennsylvania. But all 3 are important states in the general election. So the states that are a big influence in the general, don’t decide who gets to it.
If you really want to get to know the candidates, have it start in January, with Iowa and NH on one day. Then the next week have next 4 smallest states have their contests, then the next week the next 4. Continue until the largest states have their contests all together at the end. Small states have influence, but the big states can still swing things unless someone does exceptionally well.
Mich. Dems can vote for Clinton
Kucinich
Gravel
Dodd
Uncommitted
If uncommitted gets more than 15 percent ,that percentage will be open at the convention. Possible power broker seats.
I read if you write in someone ,it wont be counted.
It’s done because the parties really don’t want non-party members picking the party candidate, so they restrict primary voting to members of the party.
Wow. They are really going out of their way to twist the knife as they disenfranchise and spite their party members in an important swing state before a likely to be closely contested election. After the clusterfuck in which they somehow managed to lose in 2004 I didn’t think they could top themselves this time, but the DNC managed it. Bravo.
I tend to go the other way. Both Michigan and Florida knew the rules and decided the rules didn’t apply to them. Now that the DNC is actually telling them they have to suffer the consequences, the state parties are blaming the DNC.
In Florida, the state party says they had no choice, the Republicans voted to move the primaries to the early date. Except that the Democrats in the legislature voted for the move also. The DNC said have a caucus after the deadline, we will pay for it. The state party said no. And have filed at least 2 lawsuit trying to force the DNC to do what the state leaders want.
If I lived in either of those states, I would be pissed at the state party leadership for grandstanding and I would let them know about it. Then see what I could do about getting that leadership changed to people with more sense and less entitlement.
Option1: “Okay guys you broke the rules. You only get half of the the influence you normally would get”.
Option2:“Okay Guys you broke the rules. You get nothing! You will have no influence at all! If fact you won’t even be able to symbolically vote for the guy you want, and if you write it in, we will throw it away and have a syphlitic Donkey piss on it! And now not only will you have no influence, we are going to black-ball you from the whole damn state so there is no chance you even have the smallest part of a voice in what your party does! Bwaaaahahah! Even though you actually did nothing yourselves, Just because we want to show your leaders who has the bigger balls, you are all dead to us, and worth nothing. Bwaaahahahahahha.”
It just seems to me that option2 has a wee bit of a chance of alienating people you would really like to get out and vote for you.
Is the judge being in your face when he says you have to pay a fine of $250 for DUI and lose your license? No, he is saying you broke the rules, this is the punishment. That is what the DNC is doing.
The states knew the penalties before they did it. If the penalties aren’t enforced, why bother following the rules? Do you really want to start voting in primaries in 2010 for the 2012 election because all the state parties decide they want to be first? New Hampshire almost went to December because of their state laws. I am waiting for some other state to pass a law saying their state has to have the first primary. Then they can go to the Supreme Court and have them deal with our screwed up election system. We know how well that turned out last time. Everybody liked and agreed with the results.
Like I said, if it had happened here in Ohio, I would be very pissed at the state leadership. But the DNC is doing what they said they would do. If they didn’t, then I would start being pissed at them, and I will be if they relent with Florida and Michigan and let the votes count at the convention. It will just lead to more chaos in the future, which our system doesn’t need.
And note, this is not the first time they have punished state parties for breaking the rules. Both Delaware and Arizona held caucuses after their primaries in 2000, because their primary dates were before the allowed date. And Delaware had their delegates stripped in 1996. So it is not like this is a surprise.
Do I have to be a registered Democrat to vote in the primaries? Someone told me I can’t vote anyways because I’m an independent. I’m sorry for being so ignorant. Fight my ignorance!
Ok, before I get really pissed off at the MI dems, what actual real impact will this have on the presidential elections? Are we more likely to have Hillary be the Democratic candidate? Will the eventual Democratic candidate not campaign here? Are we more likely to get stuck with another Republican?
Now that those questions are out of the way, SCREW YOU people who decided this was a good idea. I’d much prefer to have as many candidates as possible have a good look around here and see what a complete mess our state is in, and maybe decide to help/not kick us around even more/smack Granholm and our legislature in the face.
olivesmarch4th, you shouldn’t be registered as anything. When you go to the polls, they ask you which ballot you want. They don’t check to see if you are a party member, have registered that way, have voted that way in the past, have a black shrivelled heart, are wearing union gear, kicked a puppy recently, wear birkenstocks, or any of the other ways we discern party leanings.
As i said above, Michigan doesn’t care what your supposed party is. They do care if you work at a polling place as an election inspector, but otherwise the State of Michigan is not interested
