Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Michigan has no democratic primary vote?

"The Democratic National Committee has stripped Michigan of all its delegates to the 2008 national party convention as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules. "

I just don't get the system any more, someone 'splain this to me.

Is it true that Michigan Dems have no say in the primary because of this?

Also -- isn't the Democratic field at least ONE candidate bigger than this chart from the Washington Post?

Michigan Democratic Primary Results

Candidate Votes %
Hillary Clinton 328,151 55%
Uncommitted 236,723 40%
Dennis Kucinich 21,708 4%
Chris Dodd 3,853 1%
Mike Gravel 2,363 0%

I'll have to get back to this stuff when I have the time -- but if someone can pop me a thumbnail explanation in the comments I'd sure appreciate it.

Enjoy the insanity,



Trappin' Pat said...

Basically, the earlier in the primary season you vote the more your vote counts (Oregon votes so late it is always decided by then). Because of this ALL states would keep pushing their primaries back until it would go back to a ridiculous point (say November of the previous year). Also there are traditional states that have their primaries first. So to keep some tradition and to keep the primaries close to the final election, constraint is imposed on states by the conventions (Dem & Rep) by threatening to not count their votes if they act unilaterally.

Stu Farnham said...

Bill Richardson dropped out of the race last week. Chris Dodd has also withdrwan.

Obama and Edwards did not put their names on the ballot due to the sanctions by the Demopublican (as apposed to the Republicrat) party on the state's primary.

The Dems did allow several states to change their dates: Nevada, to give Hispanic voters a bigger voice earlier in the campaign (I guess the voice of all the blacks and unemployed union members in Michigan don't matter because they are assumed), and Iowa and New Hampshire to maintain their traditional first-in-the-country status.

I believe the Republicrats imposed similar sanctions on Michigan.

Stu Farnham said...

BTW, Clinton shrewdly left her name on the ballot. She was pretty much guarantted a win for a neglible investment, and, should the sanctions against Michigan be overturned in a court challenge, she'd pick up a fair sized block of delegates.

Bpaul said...

I think this whole process is so unnecessary, and was created when travel took enormous amounts of time etc.

The electoral college is just surreal to me.

At least Romney won MUhahahaha (see video below)

Stu Farnham said...

Regarding the electoral college: the founding fathers were, for the most part, not true representative democrats (in terms of government structure); they were actually republicans (again, lower case). They were deeply suspicious that the power of the vote, unregulated, would result in "irrational" decisions -- that is, choices which did not support the interests of the landed gentry, who had largely initiated the revolution.

As a result, there are a couple of notable checks and balances in place to offset the potential tyrrany of the masses: the senate was created to balance the more democratic house of represenatives (the house is closer to 1 person 1 vote than is the senate given the fixed representation per state in the upper house).

The electoral college also represented a backstop. The electors were not committed to the candidate elected in the popular vote, and so could "correct" a mass delusion on the part of the electorate.

Hmmm. From that point of view, the system worked as designed in 2004. The electoral college allowed the party in power to overrule a serious mistake on the part of the electorate: namely, to have elected someone other than them.

Estu the king of the Poli-Cy (Political Cynicism, not Policy nor PoliSci)

Bpaul said...

As usual Estu, you serve up a thin gruel in the comments. Do some research and get back to me with some real information.


Thanks, this stuff is starting to melt out of my brain lately. Maybe making room for biology or something.

Marty said...

The Democratic Party has said they will not seat reps from Michigan at the national convention. They even went and canceled their hotel bookings this last week. Since "uncommited" got more than 30% of the vote, the Michigan delegation is going to send that many votes to represent "umcommited" and they have to vote that way on the first vote, but then can change their vote. That is if the Party will let them in

Micah said...

Just for terminology's sake. The party primaries have nothing to do with the electoral college nor is the system legislated by any elected officials.

It is created by the party leaders and is only relevant to the party that made the rule. It's totally unrelated to checks and balances. I realize Stu was responding to BP's comment about the electoral college but just didn't want too much confusion to spread.

The primary structure in the form we know it as has only existed since about the 50s and 60s. Prior to that the nominating convention was actually a real thing rather than a formality. Problem with that was the voters didn't decide who was nominated in any way. It was entirely party leadership selecting who they wanted to represent them. Needless to say this didn't last all that long.

I don't see how a legal challenge could have any bearing against a political party choosing there own internal candidate. Parties are not part of the government so I don't see a court challenge being on the horizon. If you have some information to go along with that Stu I'd be interested to hear it. Maybe it was just speculation?

CtheG said...

sorry my eyes are glazing over on this topic. I can't take it. Who the hell am I going to vote for,,,,that is the question.

Bpaul said...

I'm getting into "fuck this stuff" mode with the primaries at this point. It may pass -- we will be allowed some choice in the end, and we'll have to make it. Lesser of two evils yet again, yahooowhuptedoo

*makes finger twirls in air*

CtheG said...

yea, lesser of 2 evils is the story of my voting history. well, except this one time when I actually voted for someone I believed in who was on the Green party when I lived in Oregon. But then everyone accused me of helping Bush to win. So I inadvertently voted Bush. Nice.
It's my fault.

Bpaul said...

That argument is a crock of shit, and you are not to blame -- Dems ran a crappy campaign, didn't make distinguishing issues between them and the Republicans -- Republicans threw out the Gay Marriage divider at the end game, got the vote close enough to steal with voting machines.

It's not your fault -- that thought is just a good job of demonization of third-party hopefuls by the demublicrats. One big war party pretending to be two parties -- Bullshit.

See the documentary on Nadar "An Unreasonable Man" I believe it's called. It shows the mistakes and whatnot, but it cleared my head of the bullshit about his race being pure hubris.

The Dems lost, period.

The voting machines and "voting irregularities" were only an issue because the vote was dam close. That close vote was the Dems fault in not taking stronger stands, not putting up a better candidate, not distinguishing themselves.

I used to think the voting machines couldn't sway an election unless it was a close one -- but my opinion on this is starting to change.