Monday, January 14, 2008

The Michigan Primary

I live in a state (Michigan) where you can only vote for Hillary Clinton or undecided if you're a Democrat tomorrow. If you're a Republican you get the whole roster of horrible choices. Is this fair? Should the Democratic Party be able to decide that a primary in Michigan is invalid because we jumped the queue? Should the Democratic Party in Michigan sue the National Party for disenfranchising it? They've even taken hotel rooms away from eventual delegates to the national convention. When are we going to draft a sensible system for choosing Presidential candidates and what should that be? I vote for regional primaries that alternate every four years. What do you think?

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, we need less tyrannical election machines claiming to be parties, or parties that actually stand for something other than electoral success, or actually both. And you can also vote in the Democratic presidential primary for Mike Gravel, as I would, or Dennis Kucinich, or the now-retired from this race Christopher Dodd, unless things have changed and I've not heard they have. And the Michigan delegation, whatever the result, should do as as Freedom Democrats from the southern states did during the 1960s and go to the convention, picket and demand to be seated. It's pretty ridiculous, and should be shown to be so.

Clair D. said...

Actually, in Michigan (where I also live), if you want your Democratic non-Ms.Clinton vote to count, you have to vote "Uncommitted." All write-ins are thrown out. Which only makes the situation even more grotesque.

pattinase (abbott) said...

Uncommitted--that's me tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Those other guys are on your Mich Demo ballot, too...again, unless something has changed. And, currently, of course, none of your votes count.

Anonymous said...

From the Michigan Democractic Party:

7. The Democratic ballot will have 6 choices:
Hillary Clinton
Christopher Dodd
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Uncommitted
Write-in

http://www.michigandems.com/121007prs.html

Steve Allan said...

You can always vote in the Republican primary. It seems that the democrat primary is a waste of time in Michigan. Florida is in the same boat with the Dems. It seems a bit ridiculous in my opinion - kind of childish. The Republican National Committee punished those states that pushed ahead, but they didn't take away all of a state's delegates.

So go vote Republican for the Hell of it.

pattinase (abbott) said...

Would the earth's rotation change? I only did voted Republican once and I voted for a governor who knew (it turned out later) that toxic stuff was in the cow feed and being passed onto milk.
I read a pretty persuasive piece for voting for Kucinich but hell...

Anonymous said...

Hey, we in Hawaii had a Democratic governor who did that, too! An eccentric (even for a) Leninist candidate referred extensively to "Gov. George Heptachlor Ariyoshi" in his campaign literature, thereafter. Yeah, Kucinich is likely in it till the convention, and I might prefer him to Gravel except Gravel is slightly better on a few issues and has fewer ties to New Agey sorts who give me an itch...Kucinich allowed himself to be on the Natural Law Party line in some states last time, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's party, for example. But in most ways he's an improvement over several likelier candidates.

Steve Allan said...

See, you vote for the guy who's beatable in November.

Anonymous said...

Remarkable how the NPR reporter is baldly lying about who's on the ballot on DAY TO DAY right now. Even after mentioning that Kucinich is campaigning in Michigan, the reporter emphatically stated that "Clinton and ONLY Clinton is on the Ballot."

The problem with "strategic" voting in the GOP primary for Democrats ia that you might actually help your worst fear along.

pattinase (abbott) said...

Who is beatable? Sometimes I think any of them. I know a lot of people who crossed over and voted for Bush in
2000,thinking he would be easier to beat than McCain. Things can change over eight months. The media can reframe things to make any of them look less racist and sexist than the Dems.

Anonymous said...

Obama and Edwards could have had their names on the Michigam primary ballot; however, they declined - supposedly in a show of unity with Howard Dean and the National Democratic Party. They could also have had write-ins counted for them, but they again declined.

One opinion is that Obama and Edwards declined both opportunities in hopes that "uncommitted" would get more votes than Hillary and thus embarrass her.

Jim Winter said...

I think presidents should be elected like mayors: One big cattle call to settle who runs in November. No write-ins, no third parties, no conventions. If it's two Dems, two GOP, or two third party, too bad.

I loved it when two black Democrats ran against each other in Cleveland after such a primary. It's funny to watch career politicians fall over themselves trying to find something other than race, party, and experience to use.

And no more electoral college! What an outdated, moronic concept, easily manipulated by polarizing candidates.

pattinase (abbott) said...

Chuck, I think they were also afraid of offending the people who thought Michigan jumped the queue.
Jim, my husband worked on a book with a boatload of political scientists and none favored the demise of the electoral college. Using only the popular vote, a lot of presidents would not have been elected without runoffs. It may cut down on voter fraud. It helps minorities clustered in particular states. For instance, Jewish voters are only 2% of the population but 20% in New York so it gives them clout they wouldn't otherwise have. (These were the arguments they made in the book)
But I agree. Get rid of it and deal with these issues some other way.

Anonymous said...

That is perhaps the most specious argument I've ever read for retaining the Electoral College. I'm impressed. We've never needed a "runoff" in the past, except perhaps in the Electoral College-driven election of JQ Adams, and there's no reason why the EC would solve that non-problem, any more than it smoothed over anything in the Tilden or Gore elections it impeded. It does nothing to stop voter fraud, which is solely a local phenomenon, since it's difficult for one organization to effectively screw with the vote even statewide (albeit Diebold clearly is working on that)...and local crooks have cettainly been known to work with other local crooks in other locations. There's some question of the Diebold results in the NH primary, already, apparently.

pattinase (abbott) said...

Any president with less than 50% of the popular vote would have required runoffs: Lincoln, Kennedy, Truman, etc. Again, not my argument. Just passing it on.
The title of the book with the arguments is Choosing A President: The Electoral College and Beyond. They voted and the electoral college won. Persuading us is another matter.

Anonymous said...

Patti, I certainly realize it isn't your argument...I simply remain impressed by the nonsense that people who really should know better will put forward as True Beacuase We Say So.

There is no reason in a non-proportional representation state, as ours is, that a minority-vote president isn't a pressident because he or eventually she gets less than 50 or 50.X% of the vote. That's just stupid.

So, I skimmed the Constitution and I see only the Electoral College is cited as needing a runoff, in the passages regarding presidential election as amended in 1804--you know, when we lost the runner-up becomes Veep provision.

Anonymous said...

Or, for that matter, even if we did live in a proportional-representation country, as we don't, there'd be no reason the winner of a plurality wouldn't be a president...as we've had plurality presidents freqquently, and I'm not sure when the last president won the majority of potential voters' votes, as opposed to a plurality or majority of votes cast. But, surely those non-voters were uniformly content with the status quo! (I've heard/read this seriously put forth.) (Time to get hold of my spelling abilities, at least!)

Anonymous said...

Sorry! Letting my anger spill out here, when I at least have access to a primary that no one's trying to obviate. Good luck getting some representation, 'ganders.

pattinase (abbott) said...

It's hard not to be angry with the state of things. I want just one president in my lifetime I can be proud to have represent me.

Steve Allan said...

So, you are you voting for?

Anonymous said...

I assume you're asking Patti, Steve, but I've just registered in my new home state of New Jersey, and see that Gravel, my preferred Dem, won't be on the ballot...so now I wonder if I can write in, or if I should vote for Kucinich or Edwards, or even vote for Paul (NJ has open primaries for those who register non-partisanly). Haven't dug through the paper yet to see if write ins are an available option. Hey, Patti, wanna vote-trade? (Mostly kidding. Though in 2004, since my parents were in Virginia and offered to vote Green if I'd vote Democratic in Pennsylvania, which was somewhat less a lock.)

pattinase (abbott) said...

I have nearly been persuaded to vote for a Republican since it will have more impact. Of course, I work with 25 political scientists. I'm voting after work. I will probably decide at the last minute. Let you know.
Paul is very popular in Michigan. We have a lot of Idaho in us. Let me know what you guys would do in Michigan.