You have your information wrong.

Here in Michigan, our State Senate is runned by the Republicans.... just wanted to let you know.

KM

I understand your notion of difference. But the fact remains that the Democrats in Florida supported/sanctioned/endorsed the primary. They could have all stayed home. They could have held a caucus instead. They had options. They chose to go along with the GOP for reasons of their own. Let's not put the whole burden of blame on Republicans.

Primaries should be the business of the parties, not the state governments. The entire expense - original vote, recount(s) and/or revoting should be paid for entirely by the parties, not by public funds. In fact, I do not even see it as the business of the state to tell a political party - a private organization - when it may hold a vote or any other political function not directly related to the real election of public officers.

As to Michigan, the state legislature, which - at least in theory - serves the interest of all its citizens and not just Democrats; therefore, the legislature has not committed any act of treason except in the eyes of the DNC. Democrats were free not to vote, to have made the state-mandated primary date a hollow joke.

Same thing with Florida, the legislature is not bound to follow an ukase issued by either political party. The non-Democratic voters of the state do not owe the DNC or the state Democratic party the price of a rerun.

In fairness - and this is strictly a personal feeling - the two states should probably be revoted, since not all candidates were represented; the state. However, if the DNC and/or either state party is too poor or too cheap to do so, then "let them eat cake!" as Marie Antionette advised. Perhaps the DNC should have thought through the penalty phase a bit more before creating a first-class clusterphuque that is bound to jump up and bite them.

Most sincerely,

T. J. Flapsaddle

Looks like I stirred up a hornet's nest. And everyone has shared some excellent points.

While we are discussing who might be to blame for the mess the Democrats now face in Michigan and Florida, I think it is important to remember that, prior 1910, there was no such thing as a "Presidential Primary" as we've come to know them in the United States.

What's more, there's no provision in our Constitution that mandates the we absolutely must have them.

As Wikidpedia notes:

There is no provision for the role of political parties in the United States Constitution. Before 1820, Democratic-Republican members of Congress would nominate a single candidate from their party. That system collapsed in 1824, and since 1832 the preferred mechanism for nomination has been a national convention.

Delegates to the national convention were usually selected at state conventions whose own delegates were chosen by district conventions. Sometimes they were dominated by intrigue between political bosses who controlled delegates; the national convention was far from democratic or transparent.

Progressive Era reformers looked to the primary election as a way to measure popular opinion of candidates, as opposed to the opinion of the bosses. In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary in which the delegates to the National Convention were required to support the winner of the primary at the convention. By 1912, twelve states either selected delegates in primaries, used a preferential primary, or both. By 1920 there were 20 states with primaries, but some went back and from 1936 to 1968, 13 or 14 states used them. (Ware p 248)

The primary received its first major test in the 1912 election pitting incumbent President William Howard Taft against challengers Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt proved the most popular candidate, but as most primaries were non-binding "preference" shows and held in only fourteen of the-then forty-eight states, the Republican nomination went to Taft, who controlled the convention.

Seeking to boost voter turnout, New Hampshire simplified its ballot access laws in 1949. In the ensuing "beauty contest" of 1952, Republican Dwight Eisenhower demonstrated his broad voter appeal by out polling the favored Robert A. Taft, "Mr. Republican." Also, Democrat Estes Kefauver defeated incumbent President Harry S. Truman, leading the latter to decide not to run for another term. The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary has since become a widely-observed test of candidates' viability.

Clearly, a lot of the mess the Democrats now find themselves in with their nominating process is a direct result of their obsession with making sure all popular factions of their constituency are somehow proportionally "represented". Maybe the answer is a simple return to state conventions that select delegates by "the local party bosses" to attend the national convention.

As I've noted in other posts, Canada has always done it this way. At both the federal and provincial level in Canada, each party gathers periodically in a convention to select a leader who then represents that party going forward. If, during the next election, that party happens to garner the most seats in Parliament, then that person becomes the Prime Minister (if it's a federal election) or the Premier (if it's a provincial election).

Likewise, local Members of Parliament are chosen by each party running candidates for election in each "riding" (what we would call a district) all without direct voter input. So, come election time, Canadians are given a ballot containing names of candidates that each party has already chosen to run for election in that riding.

All in all, the Canadian system, while being somewhat less "democratic", is a far simpler, quicker and CHEAPER way to select its national and provincial leadership than the convoluted, three year long, billion dollar morass we have now created for ourselves here in the United States.