Ed Leafe wrote: > On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:06 PM, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote: > > >> Still, the Democratic primary voters for these two state have been >> disenfranchised, regardless of how you justify it. >> > > > Not really. They elected their party leaders, and their party leaders > acted irresponsibly. My guess is that none of those leaders will > retain their posts for long. *That's* how democracy is supposed to work. > > >> 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. >> > > I also know the benefit of agile development. Rigor only takes you so > far, so I don't think that's a very good analogy. > > >> 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. >> > > It's supposed to winnow out the untenable candidates early, leaving a > more manageable field for the majority of states to select from. > > >> 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. >> > > Wow, more Hillary conspriracy theories. She certainly seems to > inspire them, even among her supporters! > > What's more likely is that those states wanted a bigger share of the $ > $ spent in primaries. The amount of money spent in NH and Iowa is > staggering compared to those states' populations. > > -- Ed Leafe > Like I said before, the way the primaries work now a small number of states that hold primaries early tend to determine who will win the nomination, based on the demographics of the voters in the early states, which might not match the more general demographics of most states or the overall demographics of the country at large. Therefore the candidates spend a higher amount of campaign $ in the early primaries. If Florida and Michigan had been allowed to change the date of their primaries ahead of Iowa, etc. we could be looking at a whole different ballgame today.
The DNC's banning of any state that changes its primary to an earlier date only highlights this problem. It seem like a national primary would be at least one alternative to solving this dilemma. Weaker candidates would not be to much of a nuisance, because they would not have the support from voters needed to finance a vigorous campaign and would gradually disappear from attrition, much like candidates running in the less well know parties of the general election. 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.
