States rights in this election

[punisher73]

I was reading through and didn't really see anything addressing this issue about the election either.

Michigan and Florida decided that they wanted to move THEIR primary up from when it was scheduled.

The RNC did not have an issue with this and proceded as MI/FL had planned.

The DNC had a BIG issue telling the states that they couldn't say when their primary was and the candidates signed statements saying that the primaries meant nothing and refused to campaign in those states. In Michigan, all but Hillary took their name off the ballot to show their protest, but Florida kept the candidates names on theirs.

Now, that the race was so tight, those delegates became VERY important. But, the DNC wanted the states to hold a new vote and the state would have to pay for it.

My question, why should a political party get to dictate what a state does or does not do? Shouldn't the states have the right to chose and schedule when they feel the primary should be held?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Not really. It's a vote for a particular group, and the group can decide when it will be held. After all, unless you're a member of the group, you can't vote in the primaries.

 

[FearlessFreep]

My question, why should a political party get to dictate what a state does or does not do? Shouldn't the states have the right to chose and schedule when they feel the primary should be held?

This as interested me form the beginning. To me, the real interesting part about the whole thing has been an illustration about how out of whack the whole part-primary structure is and how much the party bosses hold power over who is even eligible to be elected

 

[cdunn]

I was reading through and didn't really see anything addressing this issue about the election either.

Michigan and Florida decided that they wanted to move THEIR primary up from when it was scheduled.

The RNC did not have an issue with this and proceded as MI/FL had planned.

The DNC had a BIG issue telling the states that they couldn't say when their primary was and the candidates signed statements saying that the primaries meant nothing and refused to campaign in those states. In Michigan, all but Hillary took their name off the ballot to show their protest, but Florida kept the candidates names on theirs.

Now, that the race was so tight, those delegates became VERY important. But, the DNC wanted the states to hold a new vote and the state would have to pay for it.

My question, why should a political party get to dictate what a state does or does not do? Shouldn't the states have the right to chose and schedule when they feel the primary should be held?

Absolutely not. Although they are enshrined and supported by state law, the political primaries are entirely an internal function of the seperate parties. The 'earlier and earlier' primary seasons every quadrennial are a function of local party organizations attempting to wield disproportionate power within the national party structure by dictating who the early 'front runners' of the race are. Why should local party structures be rewarded by naked power grabbing? The National Party gets to write the rules, because it is the National Party whose candidate is being selected!

 

[punisher73]

Absolutely not. Although they are enshrined and supported by state law, the political primaries are entirely an internal function of the seperate parties. The 'earlier and earlier' primary seasons every quadrennial are a function of local party organizations attempting to wield disproportionate power within the national party structure by dictating who the early 'front runners' of the race are. Why should local party structures be rewarded by naked power grabbing? The National Party gets to write the rules, because it is the National Party whose candidate is being selected!

I think the state should wield the power. The parties should reflect the wishes of the states to represent them at a national level. Again, this wasn't an issue of both parties having a problem with this, it was only they DNC that wanted to protest it and say it had no meaning, and then scrambled to make it mean something.

Of course I have a problem with the whole process. If you look at the first primary when it is held you have several choices for each party. The last primary held is down to two, or the canidate has already been chosen without any state input. How does this represent the states as individuals?

 

[punisher73]

Not really. It's a vote for a particular group, and the group can decide when it will be held. After all, unless you're a member of the group, you can't vote in the primaries.

True, but like ANY OTHER group in a state, when you get to do things is dictated by the state. They (political parties) are tying up tax payers resources and time to have the vote.

That is not true about being a member of the group. In my home state of Michigan we have open primaries which means I can vote for either party. Other states have open ones as well. So, in that case the states decide what kind of primary they are going to run in advance as well. Other states have an "independant" option and you can select the party of your choice as well.

http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801 (list of states and what kind of primary they hold)

 

[punisher73]

This as interested me form the beginning. To me, the real interesting part about the whole thing has been an illustration about how out of whack the whole part-primary structure is and how much the party bosses hold power over who is even eligible to be elected

That is what interested me as well. How are the people REALLY represented? If you are one of the first states, you get to chose from all of the candidates; and if you are one of the last states, you might not even get to chose because the person has already gotten the nomination or you only get to pick from two people who you didn't want.