Ed Leafe wrote: > On Feb 13, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote: > > >> 1) The Democrats threw out the Florida and Michigan primaries, >> because >> these state move their schedule up towards the beginning to have a >> greater influence on subsequent primaries. Disenfranchising the >> Democratic Florida and Michigan primary voter doesn't seem very >> Democratic to me. >> > > Let me get this straight: the DNC tells these states that if they > move their primaries up before a certain date, their delegates will > not be seated at the convention. This was in direct response to > several states planning on trying to become first in the nation, with > the possibility of some holding primaries in 2007. These two states > decided to go ahead and hold them early anyway. > > You're saying that it is somehow undemocratic to then hold them > responsible for their actions? I'll agree that the leaders of those > two states' parties are irresponsible and should be booted out, but > that's not the DNC's fault. >
Still, the Democratic primary voters for these two state have been disenfranchised, regardless of how you justify it. >> 2) The Democrats have a completely different set of rules regarding >> their primaries than do the Republicans. Again, this doesn't seem >> fair >> and results in to much confusion and contention. >> > > They are two completely separate parties. There is no law governing > their behavior; you're perfectly free to start your own party and hold > your primaries whatever way you like. > Your a programmer, so you know the benefits of standardization. There is no reason why parties can't agree to standardize primaries to be less confusing and more efficient. >> 3) It may be time to draw up a standard set of rules governing all >> political parties that hold primaries, and have the voting by all >> states >> on a single day. >> > > > Now you're eliminating the winnowing-out process that characterizes > primaries. Instead, you want a 2-level playoff-like system: win your > party's 'championship', and then win the national 'championship'. > > -- Ed Leafe > Well, the way it works today is designed to eliminate candidate in a hurry and settle on a front runner within the first few primaries. Voters watching the result of what happens early all jump on the bandwagon of the candidate that look most likely to win. It's human nature. Everyone want to support a winner, but is it right to settle on a candidate so early, even before all the candidate get a good airing out as to what they are all about. Certainly the current system offer many opportunities for improvement. I wonder if the Hillary Clinton campaign had anything to do moving the Michigan and Florida primary earlier in the voting. Hillary would have easily won both of these state, possibility sucking all the air out of the Obama challenge and eliminating him early. Such is life. Regards, LelandJ > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
