Letters to the Editor
-
Forget about the small states
The sooner we get Iowa and New Hampshire out of the way, the better. Let 'em vote in December, for all I care. There is no good reason for either of those to be "first," and a lot of good reasons to bypass them. If I'm Edwards, I ignore those states an go flat out for Florida and then the big enchilada on Feb 5. When he loses in Iowa or N.H., he can always say, well, I never expected to win those anyway.
-
GLARING GLARING Omission
While all of this is interesting, it is not very important. What is important is the change in voting status of felons who have completed their terms in jail. In almost all states, the right to vote is restored to felons. This was not automatically true in Florida. Some have estimated that 100,000 - 200,000 felons had their right to vote restored earlier this year by Mr. Crist, a reasonable and fair man.
They are predominantly black, predominantly poor, and 90 % Democrat.
We NEED to ensure that 100,000-200,000 additional Democrats are registered in Florida. I wonder if anyone is attending to that.
-
National catastrophe fund
Interestingly, and omitted from the article, is one of the main reasons for this move by Crist & Co. As state pols from both parties have repeatedly stated, they will not endorse any candidate for president that does not support the creation of a national catastrophe fund to pick up the tab for natural catastrophes. Floridians have decided that the "solution" to the high insurance costs they face due to the likelihood of getting smacked by tropical cyclones is to get the US taxpayers to subsidize them. Since Florida is a "purple state" (neither "red" not "blue"), the state politicians are gambling that it is in every presidential candidates' interests to promise to set up such a fund. And holding an early primary is an attempt to hold their feet to the fire on this one.
-
The Problem with Primaries
At one time, the parties of each state simply met in a convention and hashed out an agreement on a candidate who could actually win a nationwide election. There were no primaries.
Primaries started as part of the Progressive movement to get around "party bosses". When it first started, the few primaries there were actually strengthened the party because a candidate who could show their mettle in an election could come to the convention to argue that they knew how to campaign.
The problem with primaries is that they crown winners who may appeal to the party faithful, but can't win in a general election. The Republican party in New Jersey was actually quite moderate and could occationally sweep what would normally be a heavily Democratic state. The same was true in New York. Unfortunately, the Republican parties of both states have come under the domination of a vocal right wing faction. Far right candidates win the primaries, but almost always lose the statewide election. Thanks to the primary system, it is now almost impossible for a Republican to win either New York or New Jersey.
Voting isn't democratic if people aren't coming out to vote. Parties were originally labels to help people understand where a candidate stands on issues. The problem with primaries is that so few people participate that they don't represent any significant faction of the population. Primaries end up bringing candidates to the fore that simply are unable to win the general election.
I don't know the answer. Primaries do help show that a candidate can actually do real campaigning (although maybe that's not a good criterea for office), but they tend to favor candidates who can appeal to the most vocal faction of a party. The national primary system is even worse. Only the first few primaries have any meaning. After Iowa and New Hampshire, candidates will quickly drop out of the race and the rest of the primaries become meaningless one horse races.
Maybe we should go back to a system with more party appointed delegates. Somewhere around only 20% to 25% of the delegates chosen by primaries. Other delegates would be chosen by the state wide office holders of that party (if any exist) under the assumption that if a Democrat is able to be a governor or senator of a particualr state, they may know something about what a Democrat needs in order to actually get elected in that state. Other delegates could be chosen by caucus.
One of the biggest changes the Labor party of Great Britain did before Tony Blair was elected was change the rules on selecting the candidate for prime minister and the slate for running for parlement. Before the reform, the prime minister and Parlement slate were chosen by the Labor party board which was dominated by union bosses. After the reforms, the prime minister and slate running for Parlement were chosen by the members of Parlement.
The reforms made it possible to choose a candidates that people could actually vote for instead of a candidate that a small faction of the party actually supported. It resulted in a Labor party sweep that has held onto Parlement for over 10 years. We may decry "Bossism", but there is a point in allowing people who know what it takes to get elected a larger say on who would make a good candidate.
-
It's time to give New Hampshire and Iowa a boot to the back of the line
I've had it with Iowa and New Hampshire!
For years the fact that these two states have such overwhelming influence on the Presidential Election goes beyond comical.
First, any attempt to move their primary or caucus to before the New Year will, if memory serves, automatically disqualify their delegates.
Secondly, the DNC should lay down the law and put an end to this earlier and earlier primary bullshit once and for all. The DNC should work out a schedule that paces the primaries, and puts the majority of the delegates up for grabs in the last primary. No primary or caucus before March 1. Any state that deviates from the primary schedule as dictated should have their delegation slashed by 90%, starting with the "Super-Delegates" (delegates that are not elected in the primary, but rather have a seat because they are say, the Governor or a U.S. Senator), and those delegates should be re-apportioned to the remaining states based on population. And no matter what, Iowa and New Hampshire should be DEAD LAST.
In fact this should have been done for THIS election.