I distinctly recall voting in the 2004 March primary here in Seminole County. My wife and I were the only ones in the voting station. It’s not that people here didn’t care, it was the attitude of "What’s the point?" Even messages from the people at the DNC pleaded me not to stay home and to vote for John Kerry to show "strong support", (which we did).
But let’s face it. By March, the race for the nomination is all but over. I never got a chance to vote for my man Wes Clark—he dropped out. So did every other major contender at that point. My voice wasn’t heard because I did not have the fortune to be a resident of small white-bread state like New Hampshire or Iowa.
I have nothing against those fine states, but darn it, if you had to pick a representative state for our nation, neither of those two hold a candle (or a piece of granite or a cornstalk) to Florida. We are the fourth largest, but unlike the top 3, we aren’t solid blue (CA, NY) or solid red (TX). We are a battleground state that is proudly purple. Our large conglomeration of minority cultures (Hispanic, Haitian, African, Indian, Asian, etc), geriatric population, and diverse religions are much more aligned with the diversity and strength of this great nation. Even better, it is matched by the diverse representation in our state legislature. Add the population diversity with the diversity of our economies and industries, and I would say that Florida would be a better choice than either Iowa or New Hampshire. (Heck, most people have even visited our state at least once in their lifetime).
But before I get angry comments from the good people of Iowa or New Hampshire, let me say that the proposal I’m supporting does not call for us to move ahead of either Iowa or New Hampshire. I understand that that would signal Armageddon. NO, the benign proposal would move the primary to either a week after New Hampshire's contest, which is currently slated for Jan. 22, or to Feb. 5, whichever comes first. This is more than fair. And that’s what this issue is about: fairness.
This is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. This is an issue of giving us a voice. Far be it from me to ever stand with the GOP, but that’s where I am going to be on this one-- along with the Democrats. At least with GOPs like Rep. David Rivera, R-Miami, who is sponsoring the FL House bill, and House elections chairman, Rep. Pat Patterson, R-DeLand, who is supporting the proposal.
However, the Senate elections chairman, our own Sen. Lee Constantine, R-Altamonte Springs, seems to be expressing doubt. He stated that we need to be "very cautious and careful" about the dates—whatever the hell that means. (Are you hitting the booze again already?)
What exactly do we need to be "careful" about, Lee? That the RNC and DNC may retaliate by taking away many of our state party's delegates to the nominating convention, as some of the power elite have threatened to do?
Here would be my response: Boo-freakin’ Hoo!
When was the last time the outcome of a party convention was NOT preordained? Refresh my history, wasn’t it around the invention of television?? The conventions are nowadays nothing but a party that we watch on our talking boxes and platform for the preordained nominee. So I ask my fellow Floridians:
Would you rather lose a couple of party-goers to attend a hoe-down, or would you rather have a real voice in choosing the president?
Yes, its nice to be a battleground state, but we are forced to choose between two people we never selected. I would much rather have a voice and choice upfront rather than after the fact. If that had happened in 2000, maybe some of the smart GOPs here could have derailed W’s train and saved our country from a lot of unnecessary grief. If not, maybe in 2004 we could have helped choose a more adaptive candidate than Kerry, (like my man Wes), and stopped the madness from that angle.
Write your state legislators and the governor and let him know where you stand. Otherwise, 2008 will prove to be just another exercise in showing "strong support".
Welcome to SEMDEM. Confronting the criminally insane who rule our state; as well as the apathy of the vast majority who let them.
Share, Like, Tweet
So, I started looking for alternative presidential primary schemes. The most developed, and certainly interesting, is The American Plan.
ReplyDeleteThe Graduated Random Presidential Primary System, or American 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 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.
Apologies for the length of the quote. Quite an interesting scheme. Appears to be strongly supported by the California Democratic Party. Certainly there are potential issues -- once "hypothetical" had Nebraska and California in one round and no one would bother with Nebraska in that round -- but it is quite susceptible to tweaking.
Of course, Iowa and New Hampshire would have kittens. But . . . well . . .