OK. But I don’t see why it matters who pays for the elections. Just because NH votes itself to the front of the line, that doesn’t make that action democratic, because we’re talking about the nation as a whole. If NH voted that MA had to pay every NH resident $1,000, would it be undemocratic of MA to say “no”?
You’re not getting what I’m trying to say – I will try and restate this.
This has nothing to do with NH, really, except as one example among many. Their law says they have to be first, which I agree is pretty stupid. But it might be the law, there or in some state, that primaries are held, say, on the third Tuesday in July.
The Democratic primary election dates, state by state, are NOT under the control of the state Democratic parties. In at least some cases the dates are set by an elections board that that has a Republican majority. Maybe the Republican dominated elections board decides it doesn’t care what the DNC’s calendar says. This is speculation, but I could easily see a Republican controlled election board voting a different date for the primaries just to fuck with their local opposition. Or vice versa, for that matter.
In my state of Wisconsin, the Dems hold a plurality but not a majority of seats on the elections board. There is no certainty that they could muster enough votes to change the dates should the DNC in its wisdom want them to. If Tommy Thompson (an idiot, but that’s another thread) had stayed here and run for governor again, the Pubs would would have the purality, and maybe an absolute majority.
Yet the DNC is telling these election boards that they must follow the DNC’s calendar or face having the results tossed out. A lot of states hold Democratic and Republican primaries on the same day, so they can save the costs of a second primary. What if the RNC wants THEIR primary on a different date, and make the same threat? One set of voters or another are fucked either way. And with a strong likelihood because of actions taken (or not) by people of the OTHER party.
BOTH parties are sucking at the public tit to pay for their primaries. If they’re going to do that, they have to understand that the money and assistance comes with strings attached. They have to put up with some forms of oversight and control, and they certainly ought to understand that.
I think states would be within their rights (morally at least, if not legally) to tell both parties that they can have their primaries any time they want. BUT – no state paid poll watchers, no state or local government buildings as polling places, no state-owned voting machines or ballot counters. Let them build their own election infrastructures if they want to dictate all the details of their elections.
And one other thing about NH and maybe some others. If there is a date, or rule about choosing one, actually in the state law, that means you need a vote of the state legislature to change it, rather than a mere “election board”. If the governor vetoes, it might take an extraordinary majority to override. This of course would be even MORE beyond the ability of a state party organization to achieve, particularly if they are in the minority.
So then, couldn’t the state party, in that situation, pick who they’re going to support, in some other way than a primary?
The national party’s bluffing, by bringing up the only institutional control they could have in the situation. But they wouldn’t dare use it, and the New Hampsters know it.
I can’t think of any, as the primary is all about picking delegates to vote at the convention. The Party can decide to “seat” or not seat individuals or delegations. There have been past episodes where two groups from the same state have shown up and they had to choose which one to recognize. I don’t know enough about the history to know the background of where such groups came from. I think there may have been some episode back in the 60’s where a Southern state or two sent all white delegations, and other Dems from the state challenged the legitimacy of the selection process.
I have seen this speculation in the press, and I hope it’s correct. But it’s an absurdly arrogant position to take.
Well, discarding any cheap shots I’m tempted to make about Dean (no, really, I’m working on it), isn’t this a perfect opportunity for the grass-roots people to show their mettle?
I know “liberals”, of course. But keep in mind that in my neck of the woods, the liberals send Dem Congressmen and elect GOP presidents. People here vote the way they damn well choose, and if the leader of a party tells them they can’t vote for someone because of when they campaigned, forget complacency. They’ll vote to get Nixon back on the ballot out of spite.
Is this really an issue?
Yes, I know it’s an issue, of course. But is something like this really enough to get the DNC in a position of losing major support? It sounds like it, and if the GOP tried the same I’d be ranting here, too.
But in the grand scheme of things, is this really something to get worked up over?
(Yes, I understand the rant. I’m just trying to guage the anger over this. Honest question.)
In another thread I asked if it was too early to start a NEW thread called, “The 2008 Presidential Election: How will the Democrats fuck up THIS one?”
This is a pretty decent start.
Right, but what I mean is, a state party could say, hypothetically, “We’re not going to have a primary. We’ll have a caucus instead. Or, I the state party chairman, will just decide by fiat” or whatever.
What’s the difference between a caucus and a primary?
Still trying to understand the whole kaboodle.
In a primary, the members of a party all vote on who their candidate will be, and the candidates get delegates to the national convention based on the results of the vote (either the winner gets everything, or the candidates get a proportional number of delegates).
In a caucus, the state party has a meeting, and the meeting votes on who the candidate will be. Usually, the composition of the meeting is decided by vote…the Democrats, for example, in each town or county in the state vote on who that town or county should send to the state meeting.
What’s absurdly arrogant is New Hampshire’s insistence that it go first.
The only angry people I see are Boyo Jim and the governor of New Hampshire. It’s not going to split the Democratic Party if that’s what you’re thinking (or hoping).
No disrespect intended Boyo Jim. I just don’t understand your outrage. The national Democratic Party is trying to control its nomination process (so as to produce a candidate who is palatable to the nation as a whole) and is using the only enforcement mechanism available to it.
I understand what he’s concerned about. He’s worried that, since primary dates are established by the state and not the party, the situation could occur that New Hampshire’s delegates could not be represented.
New Hampshire state law says that they have to hold their primaries first, before any other state. So if the DNC says “State X is going to have their primary first, and we won’t recognize any primaries before that”, then New Hampshire Democrats are screwed, because the state says they have to have their primary first, but the DNC says they can’t have their primary first.
It’s this sort of thing that makes computers on Star Trek explode.
But the DNC isn’t putting any primaries before New Hampshire. They are putting two caucuses before New Hampshire. So New Hampshire’s asinine law doesn’t even kick in.
Originally, it was up to each party’s state governing body to determine how to select the state delegation to the quadrennial national party convention. In some states, the central party committee (often dominated by the governor, or by big city bosses) would name the delegates itself. In others, a state convention would choose the delegates; and the state convention would in turn be elected by local party caucuses which might or might not be open to genuine popular participation.
Disputes under this system were legion; one faction of the state party would argue that the party hadn’t followed its own rules, or that they had been improperly excluded from the state convention, and would send a competing slate of delegates to the National Convention. The National Convention had plenary authority to decide such challenges.
In the early Twentieth Century, state legislatures got into the act by scheduling party primaries, conducted by the state under state law, for both state and federal offices, including the presidency. However, it was still up to each state party to determine whether to employ the primary to elect its delegates, and if so, to determine how to translate popular votes into delegate votes.
In many cases, state parties continued to use caucuses and conventions to elect their delegates, and the state primary was a mere non-binding “beauty contest”. Even when the state party did go the primary route, disputes continued and the National Convention, as always, had the final word.
One of the most famous such challenges occurred in 1972. California party rules and state law both provided that the winner of each party’s presidential primary would win the state’s entire slate of delegates to the National Convention. After George McGovern won the primary with a 44% plurality, his opponents on the National Convention Credentials Committee overturned both party rule and law and voted that he should win only 44% of California’s delegates.
McGovern’s supporters immediately filed the court case of O’Brien v. Brown, but the courts ultimately refused to get involved. The issue became moot when the full National Convention overturned its Credentials Committee and seated the entire McGovern California slate.
However, in the same Convention, the duly primary-elected Illinois delegation was
unseated by the McGovernites. This is easy to forget in an era when National Conventions have become sterile exercises in sign-waving and hat-wearing, but Conventions have godlike authority when they choose to exercise it.
In more recent years, national parties have imposed mandates on state parties to regularize their delegate selection process. Boss-ridden state conventions are out; if a state party goes the caucus/convention route, it must follow rigorous guidelines to ensure popular participation. If a state goes the primary route, winner-take-all is out (for Democrats, at least) and there are rigorous rules concerning delegate allocation, which trump anything in state law.
Also, we’ve had issues of timing. The Democrats have long required that all states except Iowa and New Hampshire elect delegates within a three-month window from March through June. So if a state Democratic Party wants to go the primary route, it’s dependent on its state legislature to schedule a primary during the appropriate window.
What if the lawmakers won’t comply? Then the state party has two choices–hold caucuses, or recognize a non-compliant primary anyhow in the hope that the National Convention won’t care, because by that time the nomination will have been wrapped up and everybody will be wearing funny hats.
The rule changes the DNC are talking about are merely the latest refinement in this process, not something new and out of the blue.
Here’s a suggestion: hold two primaries a week, starting with the least-populated state. Thus, Wyoming and Vermont get out of the way early where the stakes and campaign costs are lowest, ramping up to Texas and California at the end, either of whom could soundly reject a front-runner if they don’t like him.
The problem is, neither of the states can reject the front runner. Besides, it taks a lot of money to keep campaigning and a lot of guys drop out early because it’s too risky to continue (or they flat out run out of money). Ideally, you’d have every state primary on the same day.
That is the worst idea imaginable. How many potential candidates can fund a nation-wide campaign right out of the gate? Clinton couldn’t have done it. We would have never heard of him under that system.
I sorta like the idea of starting with the small states, which gives underfunded but charismatic candidates a chance to make a name for themselves.
And that’s more or less what the DNC is doing – starting with smallish states (population-wise) from four different regions.
Well, it depends. The law says that the New Hampshire primary will take place before any other “primary or similar contest”, and it looks like both the New Hampshire Secretary of State (Bill Gardner) is taking the position that the Nevada caucus is a “similar contest”. So, it’s quite possible that he, with the blessing of the state Democratic party, will set the primary date before the Nevada caucus, and, in the words of state Democratic Party Chairwoman Kathy Sullivan,