Could We Have One Election Without Florida Messing With It?

Florida has made itself the first in the nation primary, for the time being. Their argument is that Florida is the biggest toss-up state and they have an important voice in the presidential election. So important in fact, that the Republican party has stripped them of half their delegates for this action.

Something similar happened in 2008 when Florida moved up their primary. The Democratic Party tried to eliminate them from the convention, then decided to give a chunk of the delegation to Obama. The Republicans are sticking to their outcome instead of making it up on the fly like the DNC.

This is really getting stupid. Why not have a national primary on January 31. That way, we can skip the steps of having candidates actually campaign and get ideas out. It’s almost like 2004, when John Kerry’s Iowa Caucus win made him the de facto nominee.

As weird as the system is, primaries are held so that small states can have retail politicking and candidates don’t need $10 million ad buys in the first month. If this system fails, we have one other option. That’s to let the party do it in a smoke-filled room. Next year, there will be 50 presidential elections and 538 people will vote for president. It may seem weird, but its worked for two centuries. You know, except when Florida voted in 2000.

About 1539days

I'm like a word a day calendar for executive disasters.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Could We Have One Election Without Florida Messing With It?

  1. myiq2xu says:

    Most states didn’t have primaries until after 1968

    • 1539days says:

      I meant the Electoral College has been around since the beginning.

      • myiq2xu says:

        One dirt little secret of US history is that our founding fathers weren’t real big fans of full democracy.

        They wanted to restrict the franchise to white, male landowners.

        • 1539days says:

          That’s your interpretation. I’m not going to ascribe motives, but the United States was constructed as a republic. Democracy is tantamount to anarchy. Look at California’s referenda. People want to spend more and pay no taxes. The state is constantly underfunded. Instead, We have 50 state governments whose representatives make the laws. We have a president who is not chosen by the party with the most seats, like many other democracies, but by the collective intent of the populations of 50 presidential elections.

          I happen to think our system demands that the people care more about their local governments. Unfortunately, many don’t. With the direct election of Senators, people care even less about state legislatures as well.

        • WMCB says:

          Well, the white male thing was pretty much the standard of the day. I sort of don’t blame them for having 1700’s attitudes in the 1700’s. It was still wrong, but I think we make a mistake when we view historical attitudes wholly through the lens of what we would think of that today.

          As for the landowner thing, it would be silly today, but there is the caveat that since the federal govt did very little, and there was no income tax, people who owned property were pretty much the only ones who paid any taxes at all. Again, not saying it was right, but one can’t discuss the evils of what they did without acknowledging the context.

        • WMCB says:

          Oh, and I agree that democracy is not what they were aiming for. I’m not a fan of it, either. I happen to like a Republic, which in my mind gives us most of the benefits of democracy along with some protection from its excesses. It’s the best compromise I know.

        • 1539days says:

          There was no income tax in the United States, so property was the only taxable asset for decades. In fact, we were still an agrarian economy. Most people had a relationship to the land because it’s where they worked and got their food.

          As far as slavery, I wrote about this on my blog at one time. In short, there would be no United States of America had the compromises in the Constitution not been made.

  2. yttik says:

    We need to just give Florida back to Spain! Seriously, they gave us hanging chads and a Bush presidency and then they went and screwed up the primary and gave us Obama. I think they should be forced to sit the next one out.

    I don’t understand a lot of crazy things about our primaries. Like, why would Florida want to be First, when it means they’ll be losing half their delegates? Why does my state hold a whole election and make people go out and vote and yet the Dems completely toss out the results and only use caucus votes? They both say it’s because it makes people feel like they have a voice. But you don’t have a voice if your vote isn’t going to count!

    • 1539days says:

      The legislature has basically admitted it’s to get Mitt Romney nominated fast and get the other candidates out of the way. It also makes it impossible for Palin to enter the primary now, along with the other states who will likely move theirs up now.

      Big states make lousy first primaries. You can’t knock on doors and go to county fairs. You need millions of dollars to flood the airwaves. And what do you flood them with? Later primaries are good for big states because the 2-3 candidates left can run negative ads. What will happen is that a number of poor candidates will have no money to campaign there and will skip the state. The ad buys will be smaller and Romney will be the winner.

      • WMCB says:

        This is a move to help Romney, I agree. Shades of DNC 2008. The GOP want a candidate they can control to gain momentum early. In Hillary’s case, it was to prevent her momentum midstream, and give them an ace in the hole and delegates to play around later if need be.

        It hurts Palin getting in, and it hurts small populist candidates like Cain, who don’t have the big donor funding.

        I hope Florida goes to Cain if Palin doesn’t get in, just as an Eff You to the establishment. But I think the GOP is underestimating the teaparty. I think they will keep Cain alive even if Mittens wins FL and NH, and slog it out to the bitter end, to force Romney to compete in those states that he hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.

        • 1539days says:

          What’s worse is that the Republican legislature in FL moved their primary in 2008 to screw over Democrats. Instead, it gave them the opportunity to give free delegates to Obama. They jut can’t stop crewing around in that state.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Why I’m a supporter of a National Primary Day. Top 3 move to another NPD then winner take all to the convention. All states and voices will be in play.

      Then every state will be FIRST 😉

  3. yttik says:

    It’s not impossible for Palin to still enter the primaries. The earliest filing period for candidates is now Oct 17-28.

    • 1539days says:

      Some states want to move theirs up to Christmas now.

      • yttik says:

        Yes I know, but don’t let the stores fool you! It isn’t even Halloween yet. The soonest deadline for candidates in any state is still Oct 17-28.

        Florida may be a pain the neck, but remember Hillary took 105 of their delegates and John McCain won on the Republican side. Neither candidate benefited from their Florida primary wins. It was practically a liability.

  4. HELENK says:

    Nevada GOP just moved their primary up.

    With infighting of who is first the voter loses or is that the purpose of the whole thing?

  5. WMCB says:

    NFRW (largest Republican women’s group) just did their national convention straw poll, and Cain won it with a whopping 48%

    Look to me like the Republican ladies are saying to the GOP “take your pre-selected, manufactured candidates and shove ’em”

  6. ralphb says:

    Expect to see more anger and protests as these accelerate. When the economy starts to improve, people are going to be bushwhacked by these judgements.

    House Is Gone but Debt Lives On

    LEHIGH ACRES, Fla.—Joseph Reilly lost his vacation home here last year when he was out of work and stopped paying his mortgage. The bank took the house and sold it. Mr. Reilly thought that was the end of it.

    In June, he learned otherwise. A phone call informed him of a court judgment against him for $192,576.71.

    It turned out that at a foreclosure sale, his former house fetched less than a quarter of what Mr. Reilly owed on it. His bank sued him for the rest.

    The result was a foreclosure hangover that homeowners rarely anticipate but increasingly face: a “deficiency judgment.”

Comments are closed.