DISENFRANCHISING VOTERS WHO ARE ALREADY DISENFRANCHISED.The Democratic National Committee has now stripped Michigan of all of its delegates at the 2008 convention. Florida was stripped of its delegates earlier. The Committee has disenfranchised so many voters because Florida and Michigan scheduled primaries before the few privileged states whose primaries are intended to be important. The disenfranchisement shouldn’t matter. Michigan voters–both Republican and Democratic–haven’t had a meaningful voice in the choice of Presidential candidates for many years. Basically, only Iowa and New Hampshire voters get a say in choosing a Presidential candidate, and party leaders are eager to keep it that way. It is surprising that so little attention is paid to such large states losing their voice, but perhaps the media also considers this disenfranchisement a non-event.
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
- Nick: Further informing my perspective was that in the writings of classical Romans the middle-aged authors opined...
- ARE PEOPLE LESS VIOLENT? (COMMENT). (2)
- Dick Weisfelder: My prior comment was just in the context of sports. Whether or not from Pinker, I have seen the...
- erik: It seems doubtful that human nature has changed. The most likely explanation would be that modern culture gives...
- HOW BANKS PREPARED FOR A U.S. DEFAULT. (2)
- GREECE’S ADVANTAGE IN THE CHICKEN GAME. (2)
- Nick: That makes sense. It reminds me of the stories Pater Familias would tell me about how in Boston the person with...
- Dick Weisfelder: Greece seems to me to be playing a game that Karl Deutsch called “underdog.” While one...
- FOOTBALL PLAYERS DELIBERATELY CAUSING CONCUSSIONS? (3)
- Nick: It was my understanding that boxing gloves were to protect the puncher’s hands and not the...
- Dick Weisfelder: Remember the Roman arenas? Bare knuckled boxing? Such injuries were taken as natural and accepted in...
- Mary Jane Schaefer: This isn’t about football. Or even sportsmanship. Well, it is about sportsmanship. But what...
- A 25 % CHANCE OF A EURO DEFAULT? (1)
- Nick: The fact that this has gone on for so long is pretty perplexing. The Economist is referring back to articles it...
- DECIDING WHAT KIND OF PATIENT YOU ARE. (1)
- Dick Weisfelder: One can be very open to new technology, but also risk averse. The recent debates about how to...
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
Meta
Question – WHY do party leaders want to keep things the way they are? Are they worried of facing the malice of New Hampshire and Iowa? As lovely as those states are…
I’d like to reinforce Nick’s comment with another hearty “WHY?” I admit to knowing very very little about politics, but the amount of power these two states have makes no sense to me at all.
Isn’t the real problem that there is no agreed upon system for sequencing primaries? In the absence of one, we have turned presidential elections into a two year circus. While our system necessitates a longer campaign than the compact Canadian and British elections, shouldn’t we be moving more in that direction?
Change can be instigated by the media. Unfortunately, they’re more concerned with talking about celebrities, and the horse-race aspect of elections. Americans don’t want to hear what they don’t know, and don’t want to be informed. They want to have it reaffirmed that they already know everything in quck soundbites.
You’ve got it right, Nick!
Pingback: Pater Familias » WHY NEW HAMPSHIRE AND IOWA? (COMMENT)
Pingback: Pater Familias » THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE (COMMENT).
Pingback: Pater Familias » ARE EXPERTS NO GOOD? (COMMENT)