so i was checking out the NYT site to see what happened in the primary in michigan--was dimly aware that they had one. and i did get the results of the primaries: mitt romney won handily, 9% advantage over the runner-up, john mccain.
but here's why i'm writing a blog entry: i wasn't aware of this until now, but apparently, the MI democratic & republican parties moved up their primaries and will be penalized for having done so in the national primary. according to the NYT, the democratic national committee will dock MI all of its delegates at the national primary; the republicans, half.
now, i'm sure that the national committees told the guys in michigan what would happen if they went ahead w/ their premature primary. being docked delegates--the measure of a state's power and influence in the national primary--is the single most powerful penalty imaginable.
so why do it?
ed
silverwhisper posted on Jan 16, 2008
| views: 297
Comments
-
TinSoldier said on Jan 16, 2008....
Yeah, I heard about this a few months ago. I think that Florida either did or was going to do the same thing.
Why stick with it even after the sanction? Because maybe next election cycle they won't be sanctioned. It's obviously important to the Michigan parties to be in there early.
-
silverwhisper said on Jan 16, 2008....
so they'll accept the penalty for a presidential primary, a once/4 year event, b/c the delegates on both sides of the aisle are suffering from a collective case of...attention whoring?!
ed -
the_infernal_optimist said on Jan 16, 2008....
Isn't that stupid? I was reading about it and it still doesn't make sense to me.
~Infernal
-
silverwhisper said on Jan 16, 2008....
i completely agree. it's a serious WTF moment for me!
ed -
MissMimi said on Jan 16, 2008....
Anybody see a lawsuit happening from this? -
silverwhisper said on Jan 16, 2008....
i'm not, primarily b/c none of the candidates will care if the michigan delegates can't vote in the national--or so i would think. i've been wrong about such things before, heaven knows.
ed -
TinSoldier said on Jan 16, 2008....
Why a lawsuit? Don't the national parties have control over how things are conducted at their conventions?
-
MissMimi said on Jan 16, 2008....
Well, if that's so, and the national party is the ultimate authority, then the decision to do this makes no sense, I agree. There must be a reason that I'm not seeing. -
silverwhisper said on Jan 16, 2008....
i think it's a state-wide case of attention whoring.
ed -
crybabylu said on Jan 16, 2008....
I think it is absolutely stupid! A vote is a vote. Whenever it is cast. Plain stupid! Politics sometimes just doesn't make sense. -
CreativeWoman said on Jan 16, 2008....
I have to agree with you on this one, ed. They wanted to try and be one of the first primaries and scrambled the way I understand it. I think Iowa even moved their's up some because of it. It's really stupid.
CW
-
tbs230 said on Jan 16, 2008....
whoa...so they are messing with their chance during the presidential primary so they can get on tv now?
That's so silly, seeing how the big talk was Iowa and New Hampshire...now I'm just waiting on NY. Come on people! No one will remember the third or fourth state in these primaries!!
Lord save us from idiots!
-
pookiedookie said on Jan 17, 2008....
Morons! -
silverwhisper said on Jan 17, 2008....
dee: i completely agree, esp w/ your last sentence. it's just silly!
CW: it's lunacy! i know people resent iowa being first but honestly!
tbs: it's utterly insane, you know?
duke: absolutely!
ed -
TinSoldier said on Jan 17, 2008....
Well, it's why I think that we should move to regional primaries.
In fact, I would like to take the primaries completely out of party hands altogether. Not that parties shouldn't/can't vote for their own candidates, but a primary ballot should be like a pre-election (like it is now) but more inclusive of other parties.
-
silverwhisper said on Jan 17, 2008....
TS, isn't that intrinsically problematic given that primaries are, you know, operated by the parties themselves? wouldn't shifting away from that existing model require an undesirable governmental interference in how political parties conduct themselves?
ed -
TinSoldier said on Jan 17, 2008....
Well, the states took over the primaries about 100 years ago. I think that it's an unhealthy relationship between the two major parties and the states themselves.
-
silverwhisper said on Jan 17, 2008....
TS: [blink] really? i didn't know that! IMV, calling that relationship "unhealthy" is rather a lot like calling icebergs "mildly problematic" for the titanic!
ed -
TinSoldier said on Jan 17, 2008....
See Wikipedia, especially the introductory paragraph and then the history.
There were very good reasons for making it so, but I think that there are even better reasons for improving the process.
Comment on "wait...michigan did what?!"
Related Posts:
bloc
posted 3 days ago
| views: 164
|
I've had a lot of debates with neocons over the definition of torture and now I'd like to pose a question to the SC community. Is this torture?... read entire post
D6fer
posted 3 days ago
| views: 60
|
In a controversial move, the Minnesota State Elections Board has decided that Al Franken defeated Norm Coleman in a race that had Coleman ahead originally and now is being contested by the Coleman camp.This leads me to my point :... read entire post
curmudgeon
posted 1 day ago
| views: 34
|
Observations about the mess in the middle east.... read entire post
curmudgeon
posted 5 days ago
| views: 22
|
I'm steamed about forking over dollars for cars I don't want and will never get to drive myself.... read entire post