First my vote was not counted by my country in 2000.

Now, just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water, my own party decides to take away all of Florida's delegates to the 2008 convention. So, I can vote in the primary, but my vote will not matter, it will not count.

I am a lifelong, loyal Democrat. I didn't think there was anything the Democrats could do to make me feel anything less than totally energized at this juncture, let alone to make me feel totally disenfranchised by my party, but they have miraculously found a way. Similarly, I didn't think there was anything we could do as a party to blow the 2008 election, but if we are determined to have in-fighting like this instead of focusing on winning the election, I don't know.

I don't even know exactly who to be mad at. The freakin' Repugs (always a good and accurate option for anger placement) for being the ones to change the primary date, or the Democratic party for choosing to punish its own voters by removing our delegates and making our primary votes not count.

All I know is how I feel: this cannot be happening. This isn't happening! Post-traumatic stress syndrome is kicking in big time. I found myself in tears this weekend over this. I mean, first my vote doesn't count in 2000, which as I've said many times on this board, I personally will NEVER get over. Of all elections not to count my vote in, it had to be THAT one?

But now, here it comes, FINALLY, the end of shrub's administration. The long national (and world-wide) nightmare is finally about to break...or so I thought. I was looking so forward to casting my vote in the primary election of 2008. And I still will, but really why bother? I mean, I will because I have voted in every election since I was 18. I will because I believe in this country, although at this point it is difficult to keep my eyes and heart focused on the constitution and the hope that it can somehow triumph over the shrub administration's attempts to trash it. I believe in elections, I believe in exercising my precious right to vote. So vote I shall, but how can I urge others to vote as I had planned? How can I tell them with a straight face that every vote counts? When the reality in Florida is: NO VOTES COUNT in the Democratic primary. Why? Because our own party has decided to "punish" us. I ask my party this: Haven't the innocent, good, loyal Democratic voters of the state of Florida been punished enough?

And this time it really hurts because this time it is my own party taking away my vote. That is what the tears were about. Every time I think about it, I could cry anew. How can the national Democratic party do this to us after what we went through here in 2000? How can they? I can't believe they are doing this to us! Haven't we been through enough? Hasn't the party been through enough? We are all unified, we are all together, how could they manage to do the ONE thing that could make me feel disenfranchised right now of all times?

*fighting back tears*

"Help me, Clarence! Help me!"

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/polit...c2f2&ei=5087%0A
http://news.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBTTE10T5F.html

P.S. I wrote to the DNC using basically the same content as my post here (toned down maybe just a little, for example, I said "Republicans", instead of "Repugs" *lol*). I also let the Florida Democratic Party know that I made my voice heard to the DNC.

I think that every registered Democrat in Florida needs to write in to the DNC and let them know how this makes us feel. Talk about a tone-deaf thing for them to have done! Way to take an incredibly energized Florida base and in one fell swoop make us feel disenfranchised and kicked to the curb, and all over something we had no control over!!! It was the repugs who changed the primary date.

Oh, Lordie.

edited to add: It wouldn't hurt if other Democrats wrote in to the DNC expressing outrage over this taking-away-Florida's-delegates decision, too.

I mean!

Terry McAuliffe and the DNC didn't let Al Gore run in 2004 and promised him no money then

Imagine in a free and no-holds barred primary how many votes Al Gore would get in Florida this time
No wonder the other candidates don't want Florida to count
They probably know they won't like the results that come in

Al Gore should run 3rd party and win that way... the democrats are just as bad as the republicans (and they will soon let Bush bomb Iran to proove it)

Sorry but that is totally untrue.

If Florida and other states are allowed to change their primary date I'm afraid it may be the end of 'retail politics' in American presidential elections. Believe me, not letting Florida Democrats have their delegates seated touches a sore spot. But creating a national primary could be even worse. Here's a column by Mark Shields



A De Facto National Primary: Is This What We Want?

With the continuing stampede by the states of Michigan, South Carolina, Florida and whatever jurisdiction is next to fast-forward its own presidential primary dates to early January 2008, the nation risks losing a lot more than the reflective judgment of the voters in the traditional first-in-the-nation states of Iowa and New Hampshire. The crowding of the primary calendar with more states voting early in the new year turns our presidential nominating process into a de facto national primary that stacks the political deck in favor of the best-known candidates, the ones who lead in the national polls and have the deepest campaign treasuries, and can afford expensive TV time in scattered markets.

As of this writing, Michigan's legislature has voted to move its primary to Jan. 15 -- just ahead of South Carolina Republicans, who had jumped theirs to Jan. 19 after Florida was first to invade the time period the Democratic Party had reserved for the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. The national Democratic Party has the unexercised power to penalize the date-jumping states by refusing to seat their delegations at next August's convention in Denver.

It now seems likely that New Hampshire will move its scheduled Jan. 22 primary forward to Jan. 8, which would almost force Iowa to move its caucuses to New Year's Day or even earlier.

In every presidential campaign from 1980 through 2004, strategist Tad Devine has been a major player, and he sees the crowding of the current primary season this way: "With the calendar still in flux and possibly pushing states back into the Christmas season, the impact on the composition of the electorate and the vote outcome will be serious. … If the new schedule forces candidates to campaign between Christmas and New Year's, the dynamic of both the election coverage and its viewership (will be altered) by family commitments around the holidays."

That could well diminish overall turnout, giving greater voice to single-issue folks in New Hampshire, where, in the 2004 Democratic primary, when there were 228,000 Democrats registered, there were 219,000 votes cast.
Yes, independents can vote in that primary, but few states in November's general election can match New Hampshire's primary turnout percentages.

But more important than any unearned advantage a scrambled schedule could confer on front-runners Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) or ex-New York mayor Rudy Giuliani is what the nation will be deprived of politically. With no small states like Iowa and New Hampshire at the very outset, totally absent from the nominating process will be "retail" politics, which requires presidential candidates to campaign person-to-person and to answer questions from ordinary Americans who are shopkeepers, teachers and homemakers. There is something profoundly democratic about a would-be president shivering in the frozen pre-dawn hours to shake the hands and ask for the votes of blue-collar workers.

This change will thrill the political handlers, who cannot control the risks of press coverage of their candidates' unscripted encounters with actual voters.

Dispel all illusions: Once the winnowed field of presidential candidates leaves New Hampshire, voters will see candidates only on TV, landing on airport tarmacs or being interviewed in studios.

To Scott Reed, one of the few living Republicans not facing a congressional subpoena to have managed a presidential campaign and a man who knows the process intimately, the front-loaded 2008 primary schedule effectively means a national primary, which "becomes all about (candidate) name ID and money."

Democrat Peter Hart, who has expertly polled the nation in every presidential race since 1972, fears that the loss of reflective judgment of Iowa and New Hampshire "will be terrible for 2008, an election we just have to get right." They are "the only two retail states, and once you lose retail, you lose the vetting of candidates by the voters."

Without the level playing field of the small states, gone will be the chance of the underfinanced and undercovered underdog to connect with voters and to overcome the favorite's big media buy through personal effort, energy and chemistry.

Now is the time to ask and to act before we move thoughtlessly to nominating our presidents in a national primary.



DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

COPYRIGHT 2007 MARK SHIELDS

Originally Published on Saturday August 25, 2007

Bill, Hillary and Terry did nothing to help Gore in 2000, and he was told by Terry that he would not have the money for a run in 2004 because they knew that they were waiting for Hillary to jump in for the 2008 race. Gore does not owe the Clintons or Terry anything. He doesn'st need them for money this time and they know it. A lot of the people are holding off and not giving to Hillary at this time. Have you wondered why the labor movement has not endorsed Hillary? They are waitng for AL, "Thank Goodness." As badly as I want a democrat in the White House, I can't support Hillary for what they did to Al Gore.

The truth about the stolen 2000 election..............NO ONE helped AL GORE, the real winner and real PRESIDENT. :angry:

Prove it. I've seen that charge on several boards and have asked for links to prove it but no one ever has. Just because the same lie is repeated many times doesn't make it true.

As far as 2000 is concerned, Terry wasn't Chairman of the DNC yet. He wasn't even elected into the position until after the recount was over.

Also, I recall that Bill wanted to do more to help Gore but that Gore didn't want his help.

And Hillary was involved in her own campaign at the time.

Not that I feel Gore owes any of them anything but I don't think they should be unfairly villified with twisted facts. That supposed to be one of things we are fighting against.

Bob Kerrey tried to help Gore but when he called the Gore campaign they didn't want him to come to Florida. It was their strategy to use only Florida Dems during the recount. They didn't want Washington people down there.

Kerrey did wind up flying to Florida at his own expense to defend Gore during the whole military ballots thing. But he got a cold should from the Gore campaign and went home after a few days.

I cannot imagine ever jumping ship from the Democratic party. Both of my parents were proud Democrats and my mom registered me as one before I ever had a say in it *lol*. It was a big thrill for me when I cast my ballot (absentee!) for Jimmy Carter in my first ever presidential election. I can never understand folks who says the two parties are the same because to me they are night and day different. I don't agree with every single issue that the Democrats typically stand for but it is pretty dang close. I am more liberal than most Democrats on most issues, right in line with the party on some, and then more conservative than most on just a few. But I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat with it practically running through my blood stream. Dropping out of the Democratic party would be like slitting my own wrists, not to be too dramatic about it!

My point is, it would take a LOT to drive me out of the Democratic party, especially now of all times. But, I'm sorry, the DNC decision to cut Florida voters out of the primary goes a long way to that end, it really does. To speak from the heart here, I'm HURT. Again, it is a "how could they?" feeling. I thought we all lived through the horror of the 2000 election, but apparently it was different for the national DNC members than it was for me and other Florida Democrats. Because had they experienced and felt what we experienced and felt, they would NEVER even consider disenfranchising us by taking away our primary vote. Out of all the dumb, opposite-of-party-building moves I could ever imagine, this is one I never would have imagined!!!!! Incredulous, that's the word for what I feel. Incredulous and the aforementioned word: hurt.

I understand that the DANG (yeah, I said dang--and I'd do it again!) repugs in the Florida legislature voted to move up the primary date. I understand that this is a violation of Democratic Party (and Republican Party, btw) rules and that it sets a dangerous trend in motion. I get it! But do they (the DNC) get that the FL legislature is controlled by REPUGS? Why punish the Florida voters?!!!!! Isn't there some other way to enforce the rules than to strip Florida of all its delegates? And that DANG (said it again!) Donna Brazille or whatever her name is with her little indignant, power-trippy comment that "We are sending a message to Florida" that "we will enforce the rules!" Well, bee-otch, ya sent a message all right. Yes indeedy do, you sent a message. But the rules enforcement bit was lost on me. See, the message I got was as follows:

"Screw you, Florida Democrats! This time it isn't the Republicans taking away your vote, it is US, your own ever-loving party! Muah! Muah! Muah ha ha ha HAAAAA!"

*blink, blink...blink*

Yeah, buddy. You really showed us. That'll learn us.

I heard someone describe it as the Democrats forming a "circular firing squad". How apt.

So, I can't believe I'm saying this, but if Gore (and no one else BUT Gore--only if it were Gore) were to run as an independent? Oh, damn straight I'd be voting for him. I'm sending a message to Donna Brazille.

Updates:

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/08/28/Opinion/...h_slighti.shtml

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/08/28/State/Ea...y_heat_Ba.shtml

edited to add this link: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...1656632,00.html (I LOVE this one!)

I wrote a "right on!" sort of Letter to the Editor in response to the first linked Editorial above. I hope they publish it. I've had excellent luck in getting Letters to the Editor published in the past.

Furthermore, I've realized/decided something: Not only am I going to vote early and vote often and vote, vote, vote 'til I just can't vote no mo', but I am going to urge every Democrat I know in Florida to turn out like they have NEVER turned out before. Let's send a message to our G(dl483773d*mnedfo78371forsaken party that we are like the Who's down in Whoville, dang it. The Grinch tried to steal Christmas but guess what? Christmas came, it came just the same, and they all gathered and sang their little Who hearts out anyway! Yeah, baby. You can steal our votes but we are going to VOTE ANYWAY!

And you know what? The media coverage of THAT will be far more sensational and wall-to-wall than if it was just a run-of-the-mill primary.

Vote, Florida Democrats, VOTE! I don't just want a great turn out. I want a RECORD turn out. Tell the Grinch (a.k.a., the DNC) where he can SHOVE his "message" to us.

:angry: :alien: :good:

This could be one of the many "Assaults on Reason" that I think is why Gore will not run???

Gore will die a loyal Democrat! However if he and Bloomberg or he and most anyone ran as a third party, it could make everyones dream or at least the young and young at heart come true about a third party.

After all, who is ever going to win as a third party person??? It will have to be someone that got known through another one of the two partys first will it not???

Alas, Gore will not do that and many think he is just the person at the right timing that could, but he will die a democrat!

I will vote democrat considering the alternative, but I am through following issues and attempting to think my caring will matter.

I see it at my state level! Ya wish a bill to be pass in TN, get a woman over the age of 40 to dress sexy and rub backs in a nice motion and whatever else she will do in private and you will get your bill passed.

Rome has peaked, Big Business rules and I tire of the attempt. I am going to enjoy my last round at JR high and maybe high school with my grandson and damn anybody that gets in his way, otherwise the game will not let us play anymore!

I love you folks, each and all, but c'mon, look at what is ahead?

30 years of wanting health care for all and still no real hope
Iraq and all around it
Osama who and where
Pakistan has the bomb
Iran and the entire threat to Israel
It is just when not if fanatical jews blow up the dome of the Rock
Stock market crisis
housing slowdown a glutted market (where are all the illegals going to work now???)
people losing their homes driving up rental prices that affect me
home grown Terriosm
Africa eating the last of its animals driving extinction
an underclass lower than poverty now entrenched in the USA
China, bad fish, bad toothpaste, bad toys, bad food, racing to space, in the hunt for our oil from here on out, Taiwan threat anytime. CHINA RSING FAST!
wild card North Korea
we don't even have a army outift in reserve in the USA anymore??? In my day either the 88nd or the 101 were deployed but not both at the same time and I saw where the 25th is also deployed into Iraq? Sheesh, talk about a dumb Red dawn movie??? What if Mexico had the balls to take back the Southwest with military, who would stop them??? The Miami and LA police force against an army?

OH Yeah Climate Change and its looming affects!

I left out a lot, trust me, but do ya get the picture?

It doesn't take an Oracle to see that whoever is elected, the next few years are NOT going to be a return to the Clinton/Gore years, not even the RR years.

Things are in decline, unless you are Big Business, the ultimate source of power on Earth!

I do have hope, my grandson's generation by all accounts so far is the best generation since the WWII ones. Lets hope that Gore is correct about that angle!

Dear God, let me clarify: I am NOT saying Gore should run as a third party candidate! I want him to be the nominee of the Democratic party!

I only mentioned that I would vote for him if he did run as an independent because that was brought up by someone else in this thread. My point was, I never thought that the Democratic party could hurt, offend, alienate and disenfranchise me so much in one fell swoop that I would even consider voting for a third-party candidate, EVEN my beloved Al Gore whom I've wanted to be president since 1988. But they managed to accomplish it with this delegates-taking-away thing!

But let me be crystal clear here: I'm with you: I pray that Gore will run as a Democrat. This is what the country and the world needs.

And I plan to VOTE in the Democratic primary as I have done every year that I've been eligible to vote. I hope all Floridians will do the same.

P.S. Sadly, I also agree with you that "Rome has peaked".

I often think how we are in the last days of the Roman Empire here. I'm not at all sure that even the great Al Gore could turn things around at this point, but I am 100% sure that we need him to try. He is absolutely the best candidate for the job.

Hey oleblueraider!

Stop trying so hard to cheer me up :!:

Yes there are a ton of problems and challenges and our next president will have a tough job. I don't see how that's a reason for Gore not to run; I think it's a very good reason FOR Gore to run. He's gotta be beyond making life easy for himself and looking good to others right?

As far as the Florida primary goes: If there is some other way to enforce the rule and prevent a national primary -- what would that be? This is something we might try and work with the Republican national committee on. Penalize some Republican delegates too. I think it's more important to protect the long-term interests of the country than to give in to the selfish interests of individual states. You know at the convention the nominee is going seat those delegates anyway. :P

Rome may be past her peak but Canada's still looking good :D

But what if--just what IF it were to be a brokered convention? Unlikely but possible. The point is that our votes should count just like those of the registered Democrats in any other state (except for the even LONGER-suffering voters of Washington, DC, but that is a topic for another thread: no justice, no peace!) and net us the delegates we have coming to us.

All this over something we (FL Democrats) had no control over and that is only SEVEN DAYS ahead of when the rules say it should be?! Granted, even one day ahead is a violation of party rules. So I retract that point, your honor. However, the first point regarding the FL Dems having no control over the primary date is valid and major. The repugs did this! It makes zero sense to respond by smacking down Florida Democratic voters just when we were finally getting up from the shock of 2000, dusting ourselves off, pulling ourselves together and saying "point me to the polls, baby!"

Isn't it? What a beautiful country in every way. I'm at such a low point about my beloved home country of the US of A, that I actually thought about the fact the other day that I might well move to Canada if I didn't have a wackadoo physical problem that was/is the reason I moved to Florida from Maryland in the first place. I can't do winter anymore. Otherwise, I'd be there (up north) in half a heartbeat. And Canada? I would at least have considered it at many points during the shrub administration. Plus, let me tell you, looking into adopting a baby as a single working person is enough to make you realize just how "family values" devoid the USA really is and to make you want to move to Canada or Europe.

...But I digress. Besides, I'd rather stay and fix what's broken about my beloved USA, not ditch it entirely. Only thing is, it gets personal and urgent when you think about having a kid and realize that, for example daycare is unaffordable to all but those who don't need it. That's when thoughts of Canada start dancing through your head. By the time I single-handedly reform social spending or the lack thereof in this country, I will be WAY too old to adopt a kiddo. So all the repugs spouting "family values" while simultaneously cutting funding for everything but the military do nothing for my chances to ever parent a child in need. With those kinds of "family values" supporting women, children and families, we don't stand a chance.

I hear you hangingchad. But just letting it happen and getting rid of American presidential retail politics is not an acceptable option to me. Florida Dems could have their own special election or could go from a primary to a caucus system.

Actually there is no "right" that state voters get to vote in a primary at all, it's not the same as a general election. Many States still have caucuses instead of primary elections. This is happening in Michigan too. Some people in Michigan want to have a primary on Jan. 15th, I think that's a bad idea.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...mary_vs_caucus/

A national presidential primary will be like the Iraq war. It will be a whole lot easier to let it happen than to get back once it's started. I say now is the time to stop it.

a couple cents

No, a special election or caucus is not acceptable. :rolleyes: There are other things on the Florida primary ballot, such as a VERY important constitutional amendment that must be defeated (but I digress--let's just leave it at a "very important constitutional amendment" and move on for the purposes of my point in this post) and it is CRUCIAL that Florida DEMOCRATS turn out en masse to the primary. If they are feeling disenfranchised and slapped in the face by their own party, then turnout is going to be low because most folks who go to the primary go to vote for the presidential candidate. Then, while they are there, they vote on the other things on the ballot as well. It is UNFAIR of the DNC to say we should siphon off voters from the primary by holding--at huge expense to the Florida Democratic party--some sort of caucus or straw poll or some other weird-arse beauty contest. NO. It is not our fault that the repugs in power set Jan. 29 as the primary date. Because of that we should spend huge gobs of money for our own weirdie caucus or straw poll or something that will do nothing but tacitly encourage folks opting to vote in that from bothering to go to the main primary that is chock full of IMPORTANT items to vote on? Stop the madness!

As for the argument that there is no right to vote in a primary, if the Democratic party is so into a strict interpretation of their own rules, then I suggest they consider the fact that, as REGISTERED Democrats, we DO have the exact same right to vote in the presidential primary AND HAVE OUR VOTES COUNT TOWARDS DELEGATES WHO WILL HAVE A VOICE AT THE CONVENTION as the voters in every other state of this union! If they have a problem with the repugs in power in FL changing the primary date, THEN REFORM THE WHOLE DANG SYSTEM, don't punish an entire, HUGE group of registered voters in your own party by rendering their votes moot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am a registered Democrat. So I most certainly DO have a "right" (under party rules) for my vote to go towards DELEGATES, baby. If registered Democratic voters in every other state get to have delegates based on their votes who are at the convention and who have a voice--THE voice--in picking the nominee, then so should voters in Florida! If the system itself is broken then the NATIONAL party needs to change the system, NATIONALLY! They do not have the right to penalize innocent voters in their party by stripping away the power that our votes hold at their convention.

No. NO! And Senator Nelson is making noises about a lawsuit against the national party. Color me THERE.

Change the entire primary system or give me my DELEGATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So what would you do? :?:

Moi? Oh, Lordie. What would I do? Hmmm...let me think about that one for a hair of a nanosecond and get back to you...

Okay, off the top of my head, if I were the DNC: I would RESTORE Florida's delegates, APOLOGIZE to the Democrats of Florida for the DNC's rash, asanine, amazingly hurtful and alienating earlier decision, and then I would decide that the party itself needs to reform the primary system at the NATIONAL level, which won't be possible for the 2008 elections but for the next cycle after that.

No delegates, no peace.

DELEGATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Need 'em, love 'em, gotta have 'em!

P.S. AND I would make one Ms. Donna Brazille* go stand in the naughty corner for a while until she feels ready to admit that her statements about "sending a message" to Florida were hurtful to Florida Democratic voters and that she was a very, very bad girl. BAD. I don't care if she was on Gore's campaign in 2000, she needs to go into the naughty corner and think about her recent behavior.

I'm just saying!

* edited to add: Is it Brazile or Brazille? I've seen it both ways. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a dern, after the way she has dissed me and every innocent registered Democrat in the ginormous state of Florida. If I spelled her name wrong, so much the better.

*hangingchad is in majorly fired-up mode today, peeps*

I'm just very afraid if States are not stopped now from moving their primaries we will permanently harm our system of democracy. It's not just about one state or one election. 40 years from now we could be stuck with a national primary because it wasn't stopped in 2007.

I guess other people are not as mortified as I am by the prospect of a national primary :?:

Hey, I pretty much love the primary system as it is now. But if the DNC has a prob with it or with the REPUG-controlled FL legislature choosing to ignore the rules of both parties (that seems to be a theme with Repugs, doesn't it? They aren't big on adherence to any law or rule which inconveniences them...but I digress) and moving the primary to a date ahead of where it should be, then they should have done, or they should do, something ELSE, as in, something other than what they did do. Anything other than what they did do. What they did do was unfair, asanine, tone deaf, and it was tantamount to shooting their own party in the foot in ways too numerous to count.

What brain trust came up with revoking the delegates to the convention as the way to go in this situation? It only does baaaaaahd things for the Democratic party and accomplishes zero.

Off the top of my head, I tend to agree with you that a national primary would be bad in so many ways. But me saying the DNC shouldn't have done this does not equate to saying "there should be a national primary". It just means they shouldn't have done this! I don't have all the answers, but I feel sure in saying they shouldn't have done this.

No, no, no. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture! Na ga da!

( :!: :?: :read: )

I don't have any perfect answers to this. You know Florida better than I do.

But say they do some national reform of the primary system and then a state breaks that agreement and makes their primary earlier. What's the enforcement mechanism?

Every state wants to be first just like every fisherman wants to catch all the fish they can. And then all the fish are gone and the whole industry collapses.

I'm just sayin' :blink:

yes, you are in a nightmare

Wayne, let me be clear that I feel Florida should NOT have broken the rule by moving their primary up ahead of when both major parties allow it. But the thing is, the Democrats in the legislature could not control what the ruling Republican party pups did. True to form, the repugs decided they did not like the rules so they would just break them.

My issue is, should the Democratic voters of Florida be punished so seriously for something they had NO control over and even their party leaders had, as I understand it, no control over? I understand your point that there has to be some consequence for breaking the rule, otherwise other states could follow suit. But this? This is shooting ourselves (the Democratic party) in the foot in more ways that I can list. Disenfranchising all your voters in a huge state, voters who were already traumatized by what happened in 2000 (traumatized more than maybe Democrats in other states can truly understand) by yanking away our votes AGAIN is not healthy for the party. It is not "party building". And that is just for starters as to all the ways this thing is going to backfire on our own party. It breaks my heart at the same time as it infuriates me. Not only am I a lifelong, passionate and loyal Democrat, but as you guys know, I happen to be a passionate Al Gore supporter. What happened in 2000 practically killed me and I'm not the only one. I'm an extreme example perhaps because I am such an ardent Gore supporter, but every Democrat I know in my own state is STILL crushed by 2000. To see our state on the network election coverage maps go from blue to red to blue to red to blue to...finally red, it was awful. To see Katherine Harris et al. obstruct the rule of law with an evil glint in her eye as she ripped the election away from the voters...the feeling cannot be explained.

Put it this way, have you all seen Fahrenheit 9.11? Well, I have. Several times. I own the DVD. And every single time I see the opening sequence that relives the 2000 election, either by the time or before the time we get to that awful part where Al Gore himself has to silence the black caucus and say "the rules do care", I am in tears. And I'm not a cryer, people. Not a cryer. But EVERY time, I'm sobbing like a baby.

Now imagine a whole state of Democratic voters feeling like I do. Imagine how that could be harnessed FOR the Democratic party in 2008. But no, what does the DNC do but decide to make our votes not count again. How do you think we feel when we hear Donna Brazille saying that she is going to "send a message to Florida"?!!! True, in some removed, intellectual, totally logical part of my brain, I'm pretty sure she meant to the rulemakers of Florida. I'm pretty sure she didn't MEAN to slap the Democratic voters themselves in the face. Yet I'm telling you in the strongest voice possible that is EXACTLY how it felt and the DNC should have KNOWN that is exactly how it would feel to us and come across and they should have found some other way, I'm sorry, to make their point. Some other way than taking our votes away. You don't do this to us AGAIN. Not our own party! It feels like a sick, cruel joke that can't be real, so it must be a surreal nightmare.

I know I'm emotional about this but, dang it, it IS emotional! Emotional is the only appropriate response here!

So, Wayne, I do hear your point and I respect and in most ways agree with what you are saying. But where we differ is that I feel no way should they have taken Florida's delegates to the convention away. Lodge a formal complaint or something with the Florida legislature. I don't know. But not this.

Speaking of Fahrenheit 9.11's opening sequence, that is kind of the tone of how I feel now: is it all a dream? An awful dream. Granted, this isn't as bad as 2000. But d*mn if it doesn't bring it all back. And I know I'm not the only Florida Democrat who is feeling this way.

What is SO unbelievable, too, about this is that you couldn't find a more energized, jazzed up Democratic base anywhere in the country and it is like the DNC went out of its way to figure out the one thing they could do to kick us in the collective gut and knock the wind right out of us.

omg, this is THE best opinion article on this topic yet!!! I LOVE it! We should just say no, indeed:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinio...,0,342890.story

I couldn't agree more about the 2000 election and the opening scenes of Fahrenheit 9/11. Florida Democrats have been traumatized, as has the whole nation. I have been angry every single day since December 12th 2000 :mad:

The question to me is what's the best thing to do next. If Florida is allowed to change their primary then so will Michigan and South Carolina and so on. I don't think there is much doubt about that. We will have a de facto national primary that will be all about buying TV ads in major markets and presidential candidates will be totally isolated from being questioned by ordinary Americans ever again. I don't care about following the rules for the sake of following some silly rule. I think we are on the edge of something the consequences of which we don't really understand. A national primary is not a choice I find acceptable.

What's your suggestion? I mean besides not liking what's been done.

I guess I would say let the Republicans have their primary whenever they want. We can't control that and we can't control the Republican Florida legislature. Florida Democrats can vote on January 29th for all relevant state and local measures and candidates. Then there could be a Florida Democratic primary sometime after February 5th (what about mail-in ballots?). I would NOT make the Florida Democratic party pay for it. Since it was out of their control and done by the Republican legislature, I would in this case use national Democratic Party funds to pay for this state primary. That's the best compromise I can think of right now, maybe we can think of a better one tomorrow. I know you're angry at Donna Brazile but I don't think she is out to be unfair to Florida Democrats. She's trying to do what she thinks is right, unpopular as that may be.

preparing for incoming flak :kenny:

"I couldn't agree more about the 2000 election and the opening scenes of Fahrenheit 9/11. Florida Democrats have been traumatized, as has the whole nation."

I feel I'm reliving those opening scenes since the DNC handed down this draconian asaninity. Or rather, I felt that way until today. Now the shock is wearing off a bit and the wind, previously knocked out of me, is returning to my sails. Now I'm MAD. And my answer to it? It is going to be to vote and get out there and personally ferry every other registered Democrat in the state of Florida to the polls on 1/29/07. Wayne, there is another issue on the ballot that is profoundly important which is the one I think I've already mentioned in this thread (pardon me, I'm on no breakfast and very little sleep right now, so I don't remember if I did or not *lol*) of a very horrible property tax amendment that the repugs are selling to the people as a "tax cut", but which really is a long-term tax INCREASE, not to mention the fact that in the short term it will absolutely devastate city budgets throughout Florida. We MUST turn out on 1/29/07 and DEFEAT the property tax amendment. How DARE the DNC basically discourage registered Democrats from going to the polls on the date that the Republican-controlled state legislature forced on us for the primary, especially when such an issue of importance to our large state is at stake? But forget about the property tax issue, which I'm sure no one outside of Florida gives a hoot about: How DARE they (the DNC) disenfranchise and punish registered voters when we had no control over the primary date? And the only reason that some of the outnumbered Democrats in the state legislature voted for the bill that contained that date was that, ironically enough, it also contained provisions for a PAPER BALLOT which one would think that the DNC would be applauding the FL state Dems for getting through!!!

"I have been angry every single day since December 12th 2000 :mad: "

Me, too. And I was ready to harness that anger constructively and creatively to GET DEMOCRATS ELECTED IN 2008 AND FURTHER THE DEMOCRATIC AGENDA/ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO DEMOCRATS. I could never imagine that the DNC, of all entities, would come along and trash, thrash and otherwise ATTEMPT to neutralize all that positive energy coming their way. But don't worry, they have not deterred me. They have energized me with a white-hot focus to get other Democrats to the polls. I seriously, SERIOUSLY am mounting a one-woman campaign to get every Democrat I know and every Democrat I don't know and every Democrat who falls into some "little known third category" (lol, just some inside the park Gore humor there *tee hee*) to the polls on 1/29/07 and 1/29/07 ONLY--not some weirdie caucus or straw poll held a week or so later. No sir! 1/29/07! We are going to vote on the proper ballot and our votes will COUNT on the other issues and as far as the prez primary? WAKE UP, DNC, our votes will "count" there, too! No delegates for us? Scr*w it. Scr*w YOU, DNC! We are a big, HUGE, important SWING state and when we speak, the nation and the candidate will listen, especially if we speak early on 1/29/07, so you say "scr*w you" to your long-suffering base here? We say "scr*w you" right back!!!!

Never in my WILDEST dreams did I ever think I would say that or feel that towards my national party powers-that-be but, oooooooooooh: I do. Eff 'em!

Oooooh: It's ON.

"The question to me is what's the best thing to do next. If Florida is allowed to change their primary then so will Michigan and South Carolina and so on. I don't think there is much doubt about that. We will have a de facto national primary ..."

Wayne, let me say here that I am with you totally about a national primary being BAD. It would be bad in many ways. Chiefly, issues of importance to states without a big media market would never be addressed or put high on the agenda. Some might argue, well, so what, shouldn't the most populous states have the biggest voice? But the argument that my mom made to me as to why the electoral college should remain applies to this, too: No, the most populous states should not have the biggest voice because then only issues important to cities would "count" and other issues, such as the environment, for example, wouldn't be given any attention. And in the end, such issues are important for all of us. Both cities and rural areas deserve representation and a national primary would make it all about media markets. BAD.

That said, I say again: taking away all the delegates from Florida's registered Democratic voters for something that the Republican-controlled state legislature did is NOT the way to preserve the current primary system!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All it does it hurt the registered voters of Florida and hurt the Democratic party as a whole. What the DNC and the entire party needs to do is to tweak the primary system, not unleash a can of whup-arse on Florida. Tweak, not totally change into a national primary system. Just tweak what we have into a fairer situation as far as the "starting gate". It won't be in time for this election but we could get started. Yanking Florida's delegates was NOT the way to go, it accomplishes nothing but a circular firing squad effect on our party and everything important to us.

And I must add that it HURTS the huge number of registered Democratic voters in Florida--each one of us as an individual Democrat--very deeply that our party would do this to us. I, for one, take it extremely personally. This is the party I've been loyal to since age 18? This is the party I have cried about since 2000? This is the party I was ready to move heaven and earth to get into the White House in 2008? THEY did this to me? To ME personally. It feels very personal. I am incapable, rightly or wrongly, of taking this action by the DNC any other way. And I would guess that other active and passionate Democrats in the state of Florida are taking this exactly the same way. Way to go, Howard Dean, ya weenie.

"I guess I would say let the Republicans have their primary whenever they want. We can't control that and we can't control the Republican Florida legislature. Florida Democrats can vote on January 29th for all relevant state and local measures and candidates. Then there could be a Florida Democratic primary sometime after February 5th (what about mail-in ballots?). I would NOT make the Florida Democratic party pay for it. Since it was out of their control and done by the Republican legislature, I would in this case use national Democratic Party funds to pay for this state primary. That's the best compromise I can think of right now, maybe we can think of a better one tomorrow. I know you're angry at Donna Brazile but I don't think she is out to be unfair to Florida Democrats. She's trying to do what she thinks is right, unpopular as that may be."

Oh, I'm angry at her. And it hurts me to be angry at her because of her history with Al Gore, but did you hear the TONE in her comments about sending a message to "everyone in Florida"? Well, message received, bee-otch. Sorry, again, I'm VERY emotional on this. And Howard Dean? He's in my cross-hairs, too, BIG TIME. More he than she. But the whole DNC has incurred the wrath of hanging chad here (God help them *lol*). It is so ON. And the only way I know to respond is, ironically, to get out the VOTE on 1/29/07. Come on, Who's down in Whoville, circle round that Christmas tree and BELT IT OUT on Christmas morning, DNC Grinch or no DNC Grinch! Welcome, Election Day, welcome welcome!

We will NOT be disenfranchised by our own party. Katherine Harris was one thing. Diebold was one thing. But the DNC? NO.

The article below provides some very interesting perspective on this whole thing. And it manages to blame Karl Rove in the process, which I'm always heartily in favor of!!!! Seriously, it is despicable that Rove put a scripted, sleek convention above a substantive, process-improving one, but it figures.

Check it out:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/08/blame_ro...dential_pr.html

:french:

Bon Jour hangingchad. See how well Karl Rove and the Pugs have been able to spin this. They have you angry at Howard Dean :o

Why would Dean want to anger and disenfranchise Florida Democrats?? He Doesn't! The DNC and Howard Dean have been pushed to this point by Karl Rove, Florida Republicans, and being put in a position of refereeing between the states and trying to keep the whole outhouse from tipping over. Republicans are wetting their pants they're so happy to see the conflict they have created in the Sunshine State. Florida Democrats seem to be playing right into their hands. They're saying "see that evil Howard Dean, he wants to disenfranchise your vote". Puh-lease

Do you have any suggestions that don't involve having the Florida Democratic Primary before February 5th?

:blink:

Wayne, I agree that this whole thing is delighting repugs and playing right into their rule-breaking little hands ( :huh: :bad: ). However, it is the DNC that is doing the playing (into the repugs hands, that is)!

Why, why, WHY oh why is Howard Dean et al. so tone-deaf? I think my wrath is correctly trained on them because I have already heard and read some registered Democrats saying they are going to stay home/not go to the polls for the primary vote on 1/29/07 because, quote: "What's the point?" Wayne, I am NOT doing that, so I am NOT playing into the repugs hands, thank you very much! I'm saying the opposite loudly and clearly to everyone I can shout it to: please, for God's sake, go to the polls and vote. Vote against the property tax amendment because is soooooooooooooooooo important and your vote is needed and will count. Vote for the presidential candidate of your choice because that is important...but we don't know if your vote will count on that one. Way to get people to the polls, Howard Dean. Yeah, I'm furious with him.

Meanwhile, back at the inn, a local Democratic activist has decided to sue the DNC (yeah!) and the state Democratic party (boo--I don't think he should have included them, but anyway), and I love this one quote from the link I'm about to post for ya, regarding precedent:

"the court found that political parties, while private groups, serve as arms of government in helping determine presidential candidates. As such, they cannot have rules that violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Link: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/08/31/Hillsbor...pat_is_ta.shtml

P.S.

Agreed that the actions of the Republican-controlled FL legislature and also, per that article I linked yesterday, it could be argued those of Karl Rove, and also due to a primary date-setting system that is inherently bizarre and unfair all set the stage for this and put the DNC into a pickle. But, Wayne, it was their choice to take the Draconian action they did. THEY, the DNC, are indeed the ones choosing to disenfranchise each and every registered voter in the state of Florida unless we (the Florida Democratic party as a whole) opt to schedule some weird-arse caucus or something that will mean far fewer voters show up to the official primary and vote on that property tax amendment (I know, I know, no one outside of FL cares about that, but trust me, it is a really important amendment to defeat and only Democratic voters will defeat it). It would also be very expensive and probably not many Democratic voters would show up to that, either. To me, it smacks of "seperate but equal". The DNC is saying, we aren't stopping your vote from counting...you just can't go to the polls on the same date as everyone else in your state and have it count. You have to go waaaaay over there...see where we are pointing? Yeah, go over there and drink from the special water fountain we've set up--or actually, that you have to build yourself--and then we will count the votes of those few of you who actually care enough and aren't infuriated enough with us towards a slate of seated delegates at the convention.

Gee, thanks Deanie baby. Thanks but no thanks. I opt to vote at the OFFICIAL, state-set primary, even if the state happens to be run by a clueless bunch of rule-breaking repugs. They are the elected officials who set the primary date. True, it violates DNC rules but--and I say this as someone who is big on rules--in this case, it is the rules that are wrong and need to be changed. That's right, I said it. Why do four states get to go before an arbitrary date and no other states? Not to agree with the repugs who set the rule-breaking date, but maybe it is almost a form of civil disobedience and a PUBLIC SERVICE to force attention on the issue of what is wrong with the current primary system.

Oh dear Lord, now I do sound like I am defending the rule-breaking action of the repug legislature itself. Here's the thing: I wouldn't have done it. If I had a prob with the primary date-setting rules, I would have taken it to my party and tried to get the system changed while still working within the system. But the repugs did do it and now that is the date for our state primary. For the DNC to come along and say we won't have delegates because of it is WRONG. I don't care that it is technically right, it is every-other-conceivable way WRONG!!!!!

This attorney will probably lose his lawsuit. But I'm glad he filed it. I'm actually starting to see a silver lining in this whole entire thing which is, maybe the primary date-setting system will be changed in the end. I am with you that a national primary is NOT where this thing should go, but really do we have to have four arbitrary states allowed to go before a certain date and all other states have to go after that certain date? What is that?
:wtf:

No. The FL state primary for 2008 will be held on 1/29/07. My suggestion is to the DNC. DNC, issue a press brief saying "Just kidding! You can have delegates galore at the convention, FL! Let's all forget this whole thing ever happened and never speak of it again!"

:wub:

Wayne, regarding some sort of caucus after the primary, this says it best:

"The national party has suggested Florida Democrats could comply by holding a caucus on Feb. 5 or later to choose their convention delegates. In that case, the Jan. 29 primary would be a meaningless "beauty contest," choosing no delegates.

State party Chairwoman Karen Thurman ruled out that idea Wednesday.

The result, she said, would be that votes in the primary wouldn't count - unacceptable in a state where memories of the 2000 presidential election and allegations of uncounted votes are still raw.

'We are not going to do anything that's going to disenfranchise Florida Democratic voters,' Thurman said. 'That is our biggest commitment and the place that we just can't move from.'

'When we go to Washington on Saturday, we're going to fight for all our delegates, and it will be the [national party] that chooses to penalize us, and the disenfranchisement is on their hands,' she said.

Party spokesman Mark Bubriski said up to 2 million Florida Democrats probably would vote in a primary election, but the caucus plan suggested by the national party would involve only about 100,000 people."

Source: http://www.fladems.com/content/w/fla_prima...rn_to_democrats

So, Wayne, I ask you: is it fair to the approximately 2 million registered Democrats who would turn up to vote in the regular primary to tell them that, instead, their state's presidential nominee choice will be chosen by only a tiny fraction (100,000) of them, versus every registered voter who choses to vote having that vote count in the official primary towards a result in which the candidate picked by the majority would be the one voted for at the convention by our delegates?

Answer key: No.

What a mess. But the only answer to making every vote count is for the DNC to back off. We can fix what is wrong with the primary system for the next election. It is too late for this one and, as the one FL Democrat said at the DNC meeting "We're asking for mercy, not judgement." Don't make the voters pay for something we can't control. Not fair. And we're SO sick of not fair down here.

Interesting let's see where this goes.

Hey guys (and gals...and anyone in between):

Check out this news coverage of the sitch on youtube. Wayne, I especially request that you listen to what Karen Thurman has to say. Because it soooooooo was not the FL Democratic state legislature members' fault that the date was set at 1/29/07! So why penalize the millions of registered Florida Democratic voters, not to mention hurt and divide the party like this, over something the ever-lovin' REPUGS did? Check it out and listen to Karen Thurman especially:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZGqyDEQNIw

Bon dia amigas e amigos :Y:

I saw the video and I think I understand that Florida Democrats are angry. I just think you're angry at the wrong people in a counter-productive way. Florida Dems could be angry at their Pug state legislature, say blast you, and go for a caucus this time. We just may not ever agree on this. Howard Dean and the DNC would like nothing more than for Florida Democrats and for all Democrats to be united and motivated. They are not threatening to not seat delegates to cause division and anger. Dean really has no other choice. Don't you see that he cannot responsibly agree to let the Republican legislature change the Democratic primary date in such a way that it violates the national agreement? Dean just cannot and should not do that. He has to think of all the states and the process itself.

Don't you think that if the DNC allows Florida to change their date then so will Michigan, South Carolina, and so on? Won't that essentially create a de facto national primary from which there is no turning back? I know there are Democrats in Florida who see this but they are probably afraid to say so lest they incur the wrath of their fellow Floridians.

Maybe this is a watershed moment where the Democratic and Republican primaries will split apart. That might be a good thing. A Democratic controlled state legislature could toss a poison pill into the Republican state primary too. A caucus is not a perfect answer, but isn't it better than unthinkingly sliding towards a national primary? The 100,000 people that show up for a caucus will have just as much say in selecting the nominee at the national convention as Florida would in any other method. Iowa has a caucus system and it seems to work fine for them. The people that do show up actually tend to care more and be better informed.

time to duck again :kenny:

I'm all about rules usually but in this case they (the DNC) did not have a good choice. There was only a bad choice and a worse choice. They went for the worse choice by enforcing this arbitrary and questionable rule and thereby disenfranching MILLIONS of innocent registered Democrats from having their vote count in the 2008 primary. UNACCEPTABLE!!!! I respect your opinion on this Wayne, but I disagree strongly with you saying that my anger is displaced onto Dean and the DNC. I feel it is squarely where it belongs (although I do have some to spare for the repugs moving the date up, never fear) and that this was the most self-destructive move the party has made in my lifetime. This is NOT going to stand.

btw, my letter to the editor of our city paper here was published Saturday:

"DNC's foolish slighting of Florida Aug. 28, editorial

Voters, don't be discouraged

Bravo to the Times for telling it like it is on this profoundly important issue. As a Florida Democrat who lived through the trauma (and it was nothing less) of the 2000 election, I just can't believe that my own party would decide to make my vote in the 2008 primary not count at the convention. Are they that tone deaf? Do they really want to hurt, offend, alienate and disenfranchise their long-suffering Florida voters and simultaneously shoot themselves in the foot at a time when the party should be energized and unified?

It was the Republican-controlled state Legislature that changed the primary date; why punish the Democratic voters? Do they really want to put us through post-traumatic stress syndrome by revisiting the 2000 election with "2008: the Sequel - this time, it's your own party taking your vote away"?

I for one am going to go to the polls just as I always have since turning 18, because the right to vote is precious to me. I am going to cast my vote for the presidential candidate of my choice. I am also going to vote - and I urge all my fellow Florida Democrats to vote - on the other important issues on the ballot such as the property tax amendment. Do not allow the DNC to make you feel powerless, Florida Democrats. Your vote will be counted on the other important issues on the ballot.

As for the presidential primary vote, I have to believe that somehow sanity and fairness will triumph and the DNC will come to its senses and count our votes, realizing that disenfranchising the huge and diverse Florida base is not the way to go!"

link: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/09/01/Opinion/...ers__To_r.shtml

Do you know that I got several phone calls at my home regarding that letter by other FL Democrats who feel the same way? I have had several letters to the editor published over the years and NEVER have I received even one phone call, yet over this I received several. If a few people bothered to call me, think how many feel the same way but didn't call.

You say, do I think Howard Dean wanted to disenfranchise me? I must respond, I don't think he thought out what the result would be of his actions because OBVIOUSLY that was the result. Don't even get me started on Dean.

Just as Nader voters in 2000 did not intend for Bush to win and ruin the country and the world, yet it was the obviously predictable result of their vote, I'm sure the DNC didn't intend to disenfranchise millions of loyal Democrats and quite possibly cost the Democrats Florida in the 2008 election, but it is the OBVIOUSLY PREDICTABLE outcome of their choice to do what they did.

Wayne, I hear what you are saying and I respect your point about, well, didn't they have to enforce the rules? My answer is, in this case, no. They need to change the rules because the rules are the problem and states are rebelling against them. While I would NOT have gone along with changing the date and breaking the rule, preferring to work within the system to change things, since the repugs don't know how to do anything but violate rules and since they did this, why punish the Democratic voters? It makes no sense, nor is it fair, nor is it smart for the party.

:wacko:

We just aren't going to agree on this one. But I don't feel my wrath is displaced. The DNC chose to do this and they didn't have to. Trust me, I'm also furious at the repugs for chosing to move up the date and couching it in some legislation that had important things like a paper ballot in there so that the Dems had to go along with it. But the bottom line is, the DNC could have said, okay, this is a violation of the rules and, after careful review, we find that the rules are wack, so let's make an exception this year and then change them for next time. Now, everyone hold hands and sing a rousing chorus of Kumbaya! That's what they should have done, imho. Not this.

ANYTHING but this.

"It wasn't a dream. It's what really happened." - Michael Moore, re the 2000 election -

LOVE this:

"On the primaries, it surely escapes the average voter why the Democratic Party insists on dictating to states how and when to conduct their primaries.

In a recent story about the Democratic National Committee's plan to punish Florida for (horrors!) holding its primary before New Hampshire, DNC member Donna Brazile said, "I hesitate to see what happens if we show somehow some wiggle room in our process."

Seems to me the old smoke-filled rooms and brokered conventions was "our process." When you start holding primaries at public expense, that becomes the public's process for choosing the candidate to run under the party banner. Haven't Florida's voters been abused enough? If the party is serious about choosing to ignore the primary results from states that break silly rules about scheduling -- Michigan now plans to vote on Jan. 15 -- put those states in the "at risk" column for the Democratic candidate next fall."

source: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article.../1070/OPINION02

Sorry if I have been a little harsh. Here's a new idea:





The American Plan
The Problem -

A Rush to Judgment: Determining the nominee early hurts the parties.

* A short campaign does not fully vet nominees or issues.
* Writing a check has become more important than casting a vote. Since 1980, 13 of the 14 presidential nominees--in both parties--were those who raised the most money by December 31 of the previous year.
* There are 4 months of dead air until the national convention.

The American Plan:The Graduated Random Presidential Primary System, or The American Plan(sometimes known as the California Plan), is designed to begin with contests in small-population states, where candidates do not need tens of millions of dollars in order to compete. A wide field of presidential hopefuls will be competitive in the early going. A "minor candidate's" surprise successes in the early rounds, based more on the merit of the message than on massive amounts of money, will tend to attract money from larger numbers of small contributors for the campaign to spend in later rounds of primaries.

Thus there should be more longevity of candidacy, and more credible challengers to the "front-runners." However, as the campaign proceeds, the aggregate value of contested states becomes successively larger, requiring the expenditure of larger amounts of money in order to campaign effectively. A gradual weeding-out process occurs, as less-successful candidates drop out of the race.

The goal is for the process to produce a clear winner in the end, but only after all voices have had a chance to be heard.

The system features a schedule consisting of ten intervals, generally of two weeks, during which randomly selected states may hold their primaries.

In the first interval, states with a combined total of eight congressional districts would hold their primaries, caucuses, or conventions. This is approximately equal to the total number of congressional districts in Iowa (5) and New Hampshire (2), thus preserving the door-to-door "retail politicking."

Any state or combination of states amounting to a total of eight congressional districts could be in the first round of primaries and caucuses, including areas that have large proportions of people of color. The District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, which also send delegates to both national conventions, are each counted as one district in this system.

In the second period--two weeks later--the eligibility number would increase to 16 (8 x 2). In the baseline design of the American Plan, every two weeks, the combined size of the contests would grow by eight congressional districts, until a combination of states totaling 80 congressional seats (8 x 10)--nearly one-fifth of the total--would be up for grabs in the tenth and last interval toward the end of June.

Because our biggest states are much more populous than the other states, this baseline design would allow California, which has 53 districts, to vote no earlier than the seventh interval, in which the eligibility number is 56 (8 x 7). To put California on equal footing with the other populous states, the order of Rounds 4 through 10 is staggered: 8, 16, 24, 56, 32, 64, 40, 72, 48, 80.

With this adjustment, the four most populous states are all eligible to vote by the fourth of ten rounds. Since only eleven percent of the American electorate votes in the first three intervals, these large states can figure early enough in the delegate selection process to have as meaningful an input as any state.

The American Plan treats all states even-handedly; on average, the smallest states are scheduled at random to vote after 32.5% of the country has voted, but for the largest states this figure is no higher than 45.5%, a spread of only 13 points.

Recommendation -

The American Plan: Good for all states, good for America.

* Accomplishes recommendations of the Vanishing Voter Project, Kennedy School of Government:
o "A nominating process that remains competitive for a longer period of time in order to give the public a greater opportunity to engage the campaign and to become informed about the candidates."
o "A briefer interval between the decisive contests and the conventions in order to help people sustain the levels of public engagement and information they had attained when the nominating campaign peaked."
o "A system that increases the likelihood that voters in all states will have an effective voice in the selection of the nominees."

* Preserves door-to-door "retail politicking" in small states early in the season. Gives an under-funded grass-roots campaign a chance to catch fire and take off. Gives candidates a chance to bounce back from early defeats.
* Has the merits of the "Delaware Plan" nearly approved by the Republican Party in 2000, but gives all states a chance to be among the early primary dates.
* Published in peer-reviewed journal: PS: Political Science and Politics, January 2004.


Options

Swing States Option

The Swing States Option would reserve one half of the districts in each of Rounds 1 through 3 to "swing" states, where the general election is expected to be competitive. This option would give an advantage to the candidate who appeals to broadest spectrum of the electorate, better ensuring the party’s victory in the general election.

Conclusion

The Graduated Random Presidential Primary System, or American Plan, is at the same time both random in composition, yet predictable in structure. The composition of the schedule favors no one state or one region. Meanwhile, the structure of the system enables the widest possible political debate in the early stages of the presidential primary schedule, yet provides a gradual winnowing process as the price of staying in the game increases with each successive round. A successful candidate need not start out well heeled, but will cross the finish line fully vetted. He or she need not hail from any particular region of the country, but must appeal to the whole nation.

America deserves such a president, and America deserves a rational, systematic presidential nomination process for the 21st century.

For further information, see The American Plan Factsheets

SOME COMMENTS:


September 2nd 2007
The Primary Problem
The New York Times

An editorial call to fix the primaries system, with a particular nod to the FairVote-backed American Plan.

August 26th 2007
Leapfrogging toward a presidential nominee
the Portland Press Herald

Imagine "It's a Wonderful Life" interrupted by negative campaign ads, and you get a sense of what we're in for if the primary states continue to fight to be first.

August 26th 2007
Primary jockeying puts uncertainty in election landscape
San Diego Union Tribune

With the 2008 presidential election year just months away, states continue elbowing each other to get their primaries or caucuses closer to the front of the nomination line.


August 24th 2007
Christmas politics?
Bradenton Herald

A Florida paper adds to the growing choir of discontent over chaos of the presidential primary system.

July 15th 2007
However it's broken, it's time to fix primary process
San Jose Mercury News

There is no policy in the United States for how to run presidential nominations. That's the idea behind FairVote's new effort, FixThePrimaries.com, which aims for a national commission to establish a saner process in 2012.

April 16th 2007
Pileup

New Yorker essayist and FairVote Board member Hendrik Hertzberg comments on the dangerous stampede of states to the front of the presidential primary schedule, and the value of the National Popular Vote plan for creating fair presidential elections.

March 15th 2007
Why This Primary Push?
Washington Post

George Will calls for a FairVote solution to the front-loading of presidential primary elections in a mid-March editorial.

March 6th 2007
Nation's Presidential Primary Calendar Is a Political Tragedy
Roll Call

Former U.S. Senator endorses the American Plan as a solution to front-loading of presidential primary elections.

December 5th 2005
A better plan needed for primaries
Rocky Mountain News