In 2004, there were 20 states that "had no say" in selecting the democratic nominee

[TheDoorbellRang]

In 2004, John Kerry was named the presumptive nominee after the March 2nd primaries. On March 3rd, the last of his viable opposition dropped out, and the rest of the season's races served merely to affirm the only one left -- John Kerry. These states whose races were held after March 3rd were: AK,AL,AR,CO,FL,IL,IN,KS,KY,LA,MT,NC,NE,NJ,OR,PA,SD,TX,WV, and WY.

So when FL and MI cry that they "have no say" in electing this year's democratic nominee, why doesn't anyone mention the numbers of states that have had no say in all the past primary seaons?

FL and MI superdelegates are like the grade school bullies who butt into the front of the lunchline so they can get the entree they want. This time Teacher caught them and sent them to the end of the line. This time the smaller, silent ones who never get their choice of entree get what they want, and the bullies get their just desserts.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Sorry, this argument is crazy

All the states you list had full slates of delegates who cast real votes for the nominee at the convention.

The fact that they all voted for the same guy doesn't mean they were somehow disenfranchised. Those delegates were ELECTED to vote for Kerry.

You might as well say that I was excluded from the 1996 election because Bill Clinton won by more than one vote.

[TheDoorbellRang]

4. But do you think that some resolution will be reached

by the time the primary season is past? Don't you think that one way or another, some accord will be reached so that the PD's from FL and MI are seated? It's just that they, like many states in the past, will not be instrumental in determining the democratic nominee.

BTW, I'm one who thinks the super D's from both states should be excluded in any case, since they are the culpable parties.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. No penalty should affect the vote for the nominee

It is vital that neither side have any legitimate complaint-cards. The party is fracturing and only the most broadly representative, democratic process can legitimize the nominee in an atmosphere where people are going to be looking for reasons to consider the nominee illegitimate. (On either side)

The existing votes in FL and MI cannot be honored in any way. They cannot be the basis for any compromise because they were not proper votes since people knew they were just straw-polls or beauty contests.

So a stable, fair process must determine the will of the people of FL and MI in a vote that everyone knows counts, and where candidates campaign, etc.

Otherwise we will never hear the end of it, no matter who wins the nomination.

[TheDoorbellRang]

15. FL and MI are running out of time

I agree some redo should be done, but amidst all the footstomping and tantrum throwing, it seems more unlikely with every day that passes.

[krispos42]

2. All the more reason for having all of them in one month

Ten states a week for five weeks straight.

The most populous state and 9 least-populous states first, then keep following the pattern.

Do it in May, on a Saturday.

[Fresh_Start]

3. maybe it needs to be regional to allow the candidates

to go to all the states for that week. Cross country travel would impede access.
BTW, rotate the states which go first each election.

[krispos42]

6. I made this post back in January...

I think a 5-week process in May would be a good idea. Something like the largest states and the nine smallest states (by population) the first week, second-largest and next nine smallest the second week, etc.

Week 1: #1, 42-50
Week 2: #2, 33-41
Week 3: #3, 24-32
Week 4: #4, 15-23
Week 5: #5, 6-14

Put DC in the second week, maybe.

So, for week one, you would have California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, and DC. 84 Electoral Votes from red and blue states, West Coast, East Cost, and the Midwest.

Week two, Texas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, and New Hampshire. 80 Electoral votes.

Week three, New York, South Carolina, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Distric of Columbia. 96 Electoral votes

Week four, Florida, Indiana, Arizona, Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and Alabama. 118 Electoral votes

Week five, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusettes, and Washington State. 160 Electoral votes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3925634#3933401

It's geographically, socially, ethnically, religiously, racially, and economically diverse every single week, with actually more electoral votes on the line as time goes on.

Iowa and New Hampshire would lose their front-runner status. Eh, my heart bleeds.

[TheDoorbellRang]

9. But there are some sound reasons for having smaller states go first

whether they're Iowa and New Hampshire or some other. If the first races are in small states, it levels the playing field so that candidates with less money and fame have a chance, too.

[krispos42]

11. Okay, then...

Iowa and New Hampshire can have their very own special day right after Tax Day, and their spots in the five-week process can be filled with DC and Puerto Rico.

This keeps the tradition.

Regardless, pushing the entire primary season to late April and May gives candidates more time to campaign after the holidays, with an option of choosing how to run: big state, small state, rural, urban, Midwestern, Southern, New Englander, Rocky Mountain, Western.

[TheDoorbellRang]

8. Yes. To say the current system needs some fine tuning is an understatement.

This is the first primary season that most of us have had reason to see how many different states handle their selection process. It's interesting to note that as each state's race comes up, folks from other states jump in with,"That's not fair!" "That's stupid!" "That's just so wrong!" while the folks who live in said state just as firmly defend their state's modus operandi as one that works well for them and too bad no one else gets it. So we're left with: we all agree that the states other than our own need to clean up their act. No wonder the DNC has so much fun trying to set new rules.

[TheDoorbellRang]

5. As I understand it, the reason they start with smaller states

is to level the playing field to make it easier for candidates with a smaller bankroll and less name recognition to compete. I think that's an excellent idea. But I agree, I wish they'd clump the states together more so that we're not strung out from here to eternity -- or June, whichever comes first.

[TwilightGardener]

7. I will never understand why MI and FL are speshul. I have rarely

lived in states that participated meaningfully in a primary--usually it's settled long before then. And America marches on anyway. Ridiculous. Funny thing is, MI and FL WOULD have been important if they had stayed where they were in the lineup.

[TheDoorbellRang]

10. Fl super D's argue that "size matters"

on the lapel pin I saw on one of the threads here. The pin showed tiny Iowa and New Hampshire next to Florida; I agree with them: they ARE big dicks.

[ContinentalOp]

12. He already had it wrapped up well before then didn't he?

I don't see CA on your list but I clearly remember feeling that my primary vote was pointless. The media had already crowned him as the front runner.

[TheDoorbellRang]

14. According to news stories at the time, March 2nd primaries were the clincher

I just googled "Kerry presumptive democratic nominee" to find out what sealed the deal, then I checked out TheGreenPapers to find out when states voted. IA and NH went first (and DC was in the group, too) in January; followed by AR,DE,MO,ND,NM,OK, and SC on February 3rd; MI and WA on February 7th; ME on the 8th; TN and VA on the 10th; then NV; then WI; and finally HI,ID, and UT on the 24th.

The race was pretty well going towards Kerry at that point. Then on March 2nd: CA,CT,GA,MA,MD,NY,OH,RI, and VT voted. Edwards dropped out the next day, and Kerry was dubbed the presumptive nominee.