Flordia and Michigan part 2...here we go again

[Croinc]

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arc ... and_mi.php

This has a purely Clintonian ring to it.

[Kulaf]

I think the real danger for the Dems is that if the voters of FL and MI are not counted.....then all of those arguements they made in FL and OH in the last two presidential elections become political fodder for the RNC. The RNC can then play to independents and centrist Dems in those states and argue that your party of choice didn't heed your voice and through no fault of your own your voice was not heard.......vote for us.

The best thing that can happen is for the FL and MI parties to get their act together and get a revote in place by the DNC deadline.

[Finglefinn]

Well, all I can say is, good for Howard Dean. This result sounds very fair to me.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I think the real danger for the Dems is that if the voters of FL and MI are not counted.....then all of those arguements they made in FL and OH in the last two presidential elections become political fodder for the RNC. The RNC can then play to independents and centrist Dems in those states and argue that your party of choice didn't heed your voice and through no fault of your own your voice was not heard.......vote for us.

The best thing that can happen is for the FL and MI parties to get their act together and get a revote in place by the DNC deadline.

I can understand that argument for Michigan, but not for Florida. With Florida, it was a Republican controlled government that decided to move both party's primaries up. The Democrats really didn't have a choice in the matter, as I understand it.

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

I fail to see how one party could vote earlier, or later for that matter, without the other party voting as well considering it was the decision of the state and not the parties IN the state.Should the state say "We're moving up our Primary's" then both parties are forced to vote. The problem, in my opinion, is not so much the fact the delegates aren't being counted, and the fact that it's a failing of the Democratic Process to the people of the states whom are not given a voice now. I realize that a vote counting in general is still quite up for debate and thats not my point in the end, my point is that why should the masses be punished for the lack of intelligence of those who are leading them, and in charge of said situation. If given a choice of "vote now or not at all" then of course people are going to vote, and as such their votes should be counted along with the rest of the votes.

So Huckabee was counted out of the race, it's not really as if he had a chance, but "what if" all Republicans in Fl, Mi and the states that have not yet voted all voted for Huckabee ? Why should the votes of any of the states NOT count ? If McCain wins the nomination in the end then so be it, however to discount the votes of the future primarys because McCain already has the delegates needed for the nomination is just as wrong. Why is it fair to only partially count votes ? IMO thats like saying "ok after Pa whichever Dem has the most delegates is getting the nomination".

[Klast Brell]

Ari: You are mistaking the primaries for a democratic process. The parties can chose who they nominate any way they please. Some just have the leadership gather in a back room and pick one. Others have "non binding" votes like the Minnesota republican party.

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

Then WHAT is the point of the Primarys ? If the candidate's just going to be chosen anyway, supposadly because of the number of delegates who's promised their vote to that person, when why bother at all... to make people feel as if they're involved ?

[Partha]

I think the real danger for the Dems is that if the voters of FL and MI are not counted.....then all of those arguements they made in FL and OH in the last two presidential elections become political fodder for the RNC. The RNC can then play to independents and centrist Dems in those states and argue that your party of choice didn't heed your voice and through no fault of your own your voice was not heard.......vote for us.

The best thing that can happen is for the FL and MI parties to get their act together and get a revote in place by the DNC deadline.

I can understand that argument for Michigan, but not for Florida. With Florida, it was a Republican controlled government that decided to move both party's primaries up. The Democrats really didn't have a choice in the matter, as I understand it.

If you'll check the voting records on it, you'll see that it passed with overwhelming Democratic support.

The problem was that the party leaders didn't think Dean would actually apply the rules.

[Ddrak]

Then WHAT is the point of the Primarys ? If the candidate's just going to be chosen anyway, supposadly because of the number of delegates who's promised their vote to that person, when why bother at all... to make people feel as if they're involved ?

An excellent question. I think primaries are a massive waste of money and a great way to publicly fracture the party from within prior to a real campaign. If either party had any sense they'd toss them out the window and have a nationwide ballot among actual paid up party members, keeping the press well out of it.

Dd

[rodric]

Yep, many parliamentary and republican governments select their leader internally whenever and however they feel like it. When an election is called, the party runs their leader for the head of office. If the party wins, in goes the leader. Britain is one example of this

The U.S. is slightly unusual among leading world republics, because when a party is out of power (i.e. does not hold the presidency), there is no clear leader. In many other nations, Hillary and Bill would have been running the party since the 90's, and they'd pop her right into office after a sweeping Democratic victory in Novemember.

Here, we have to go through all this nonsense first.

Of course the nonsense is quite entertaining.

Rhodric

[Ddrak]

Yep, many parliamentary and republican governments select their leader internally whenever and however they feel like it. When an election is called, the party runs their leader for the head of office. If the party wins, in goes the leader. Britain is one example of this

Err... not really. You're confusing the Prime Minister with the President which is not even close to an accurate comparison. The Prime Minister is closer to the office of House Majority Leader which is selected in much the same way - an internal party vote.

The essence of Primaries in pretty much every other democratic system is completely taken internally to the running parties who select the party members that will run for each available office in various ways according to party lines - typically without a big public song and dance that costs massive amounts of money and gives the opposing parties lots of ammunition to fling around once the runners have been decided.

Other nations with similar Presidential systems typically just select their candidates for President internally with some sort of relatively subdued voting process and they're usually pretty smart about it - after all you don't run someone who has less chance of winning if you want to stay a serious party for long.

In constitutional monarchies the King/Queen is the closest functional equivalent of the President and isn't elected at all. It's informally agreed that they maintain their position as head of state as long as they don't actually get involved in politics, which leaves most of the power on the elected representatives. In those cases, the Prime Minister has no "special" powers over any other elected representative and is typically just the spokesman for the ruling party. Parliamentary systems have no real executive, with the cabinet formed of selected members of the House rather than simple appointment of the President. You'll find that the Prime Minister is rarely the head of the ruling party, and though they are usually the most outspoken they have anything but absolute power over anything at all.

Dd

[rodric]

Perhaps I oversimplified a bit, and I don't pretend to understand the British or Australian system better than you Ddrak.

However for practical purposes I would argue that Gordon Brown is the effective head of state for Britain, not the Queen. And I would also argue that the Tory party leader, David Cameron will be prime minister if the Tories win the an election in 2009.

The prime minister may not command the armed forces like the U.S. president does, but I would say in terms of running government policy the two positions are quite similar.

Rhodric

[Ddrak]

There's a lot of truth to that, I agree. I think the Prime Minister in a parliamentary system is a lot more volatile a position than a President though, as they can be replaced at any time the party thinks they are screwing the pooch in popularity. They really don't get to set a national direction in the same way a President does (as much as they like to think they do).

Dd