News: Michigan Dems Are Unanimous

Breaking news from Michigan: there won't be a Democratic caucus in Michigan. There will be a Democratic Primary on Jan. 15. The Michigan Democratic Party will resubmit its delegate selection plan to the DNC. The DNC will find the plan in non-compliance and strip Michigan of its delegates. The candidates will then have to decide whether to compete there.

But there is, as of 4:30 pm ET today, unanimity among Democrats -- state party chair Mark Brewer has capitulated to the pressure of Gov. Granholm, the UAW and others.

The state party released a statement moments ago:

“The leadership of the Michigan Democratic Party today announced their intention to comply with the new state law establishing a January 15, 2008 presidential primary, and to select their delegates to the Democratic National Convention on that day.”

“Michigan Democrats are taking this step in direct response to the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s statement of intent on August 9th, supported by the Democratic leadership of New Hampshire, to hold the New Hampshire primary before January 19, 2008, in direct violation of the DNC Rules that state that New Hampshire’s delegates cannot be selected at a primary held earlier than January 22, 2008.”

“Michigan Democrats believe that no state should enjoy a privileged position every four years in selecting our party’s presidential nominee. New Hampshire’s stated intent to move their primary before January 19th, in direct violation of the DNC rules, is an effort to perpetuate their self-appointed privileged position. That makes the delegate selection process in other states, including Michigan, less meaningful, and results in the candidates paying less attention to the issues that are important to Michigan and other states.”

Comments

There are two things that bother me about the way the primary games are going this year. The first is that there is a perfectly rational way (probably more than one) of arranging the primaries to ensure the best possible selection of a candidate for office, particularly for the presidency. If the parties would arrange the states in tiers by how many delegates they get, so that small-population states are grouped together, large-population states are grouped together, and three or so tiers of mid-level states are grouped with states of similar population, you would find that the number of states would decrease with each tier, but that the number of electors would remain relatively constant. If you then arranged your primaries so that each tier voted on the same day, and they went in either ascending order of population (that is, small states first), then all of the states would have a strong influence on who gets elected, the candidates with less recognition and money would have more time to make a good showing if they were good campaigners (because they would only have to win a couple of the small states to stay in the race), the "anointed" candidates would have to prove their ability to run a tough campaign before the general elections, and the voters would have a far more realistic view of the candidates. In other words, this arrangement would be a rational way of picking the best candidates for high offices. Which means, of course, that it will never happen.

Second, why are the states involved at all? The primaries are the way that the major political parties select their candidates; that is not a governmental, but a partisan, function. The government should only run the general elections; make the parties spend their own money to figure out who their members want to represent them in the election. This is, in fact, yet another part of the web of laws designed to make minor parties a non-factor in US elections, and to ensure that the duopoly of major parties continues to get taxpayer funding even from people who deeply disagree with either or both parties.

Actually, this year, there is a third problem: by moving the contests so early, the voters will be less in tune with what is going on, and thus either will vote in an uninformed manner, or will not vote at all. The former would lead to poor, but media-favored, candidates having a more significant edge. The latter would result in the elections essentially being only for the most politically partisan people, which would again lead to poor, but in this case activist-favored, candidates.

Posted by Jeff Medcalf | August 31, 2007 9:19 PM

The consequences of the Michigan leaps will likely be much more dramatic on the Republican side, by dramatically improving Romney's chances.

Before Michigan changed its primary date, it just was not evident how Romney could possibly build on Iowa and New Hampshire victories with South Carolina and Florida looking soon after. But Michigan's leap to January 15th radically changes the dynamic on the Republican side, damaging Giuiliani's hopes to easely recover from power showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, and offering Romney an obvious path to the nomination.

Read full analysis at Campaign Diaries.

Posted by Daniel | August 31, 2007 9:29 PM

I don't see why these states don't just allow to stand what was approved at the DNC Winter Meeting.

People are so immature, which is why I don't mince words. When I say they are stupid, I mean it.

"First, first, first. I want to be first. Not fair, not fair, not fair."

Grow up, already.

I have a simple rule.

Primaries help Clinton.
Caucuses don't.

Give me caucuses.

Posted by OEST | August 31, 2007 9:32 PM

Say it along with me, children: "National Primary". No more pandering to the whims of state electoral machines that have a vested interest in manipulating the system to benefit themselves.

Stop fielding candidates that are electable in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. And while you're at it, stop fielding "lesser of two evils" candidates.

Posted by AM Edition | September 1, 2007 12:20 AM

As I watch the states play one-upmanship by moving their primaries forward, one thing strikes me: if everyone bemoans the ungodly amounts of money in politics, why are we stretching out the time available to spend more? This only makes the money problem worse.

I think that one way to reduce the amount of money in politics is to shorten the campaigning time. No declarations of candidacy before Memorial Day of an election year. That means less time to spend money.

Besides, the public doesn't really pay attention until the last few weeks of the campaign anyway.

Posted by Bob1 | September 1, 2007 12:34 AM

Say it along with me, children: "National Primary". No more pandering to the whims of state electoral machines that have a vested interest in manipulating the system to benefit themselves.

A national primary is almost as worse of an idea as using the popular vote to elect a President.

The electoral college may be an "elitist" system, but it forces candidates to campaign all over the countries, and in its own way, it's kind of proportional. The popular vote would have all candidates focusing on the most populous states only.

A national primary would do the same. It would make the primaries ALL ABOUT MONEY AND NAME. Sure, you could go to public financing, but the "CLINTON" name would still earn her more votes during a national primary just because it's familiar. A national primary would be all about who can buy the most ads. If you went to a national primary, you would HAVE TO HAVE public financing or free advertising to go along with it.

Since I know you aren't going to get either, a national primary would be a crooked as our recent elections have been.

It's a terrible idea right now.

Posted by OEST | September 1, 2007 8:57 AM

Oh goody. I predict that the Supreme Court is going to decide who the Democratic nominiee is. By the time that this is over, half the delagates in the country are going to be ignored by the party.

This is just what the Democrats need to win the election -- a protracted, expensive, and nasty court battle over the nominiation process. That is clearly where this is all headed. It is no wonder that the Republican controlled legislatures are pushing for this. I'd say that I was surprised that the Clinton backers were naiive enough to fall for this one, but I'd be lying.

Posted by George | September 1, 2007 1:04 PM