Proposal for 2012 Primaries

From December 2007 to March 2008, I wrote various drafts of a proposal on how our political parties — starting in 2012 — might adopt primary election procedures that would better serve our country in selecting presidential candidates. I originally drafted a hypothetical calendar for 2008, based on general election results from 2004. Now that we have the results for 2008, I can now propose a calendar specific to 2012.

The system by which our parties choose their presidential candidates has proven itself to be, at best, highly questionable — at worst, severely flawed.

The primary calendar we need most is one that is built on an orderly and rational plan — one that is based on mathematics and on recent historical outcomes — and not on an arbitrary, publicity-driven, system of one-upsmanship. The change I propose would provide for a more effective, equitable process than the one we have now.

The following factors are the key ones to consider:

Margin of Victory

- The state primaries would be placed in order according to the leading candidates’ margins of victory in the preceding general election — with the states registering the closest margins of victory going first.

For example, John McCain won Missouri by 0.1% and Barack Obama won North Carolina by 0.4%; conversely, McCain won Wyoming by 33%, and Obama won Hawaii by 45%. Therefore, the primary calendar I propose would commence with primaries being held in states such as Missouri and North Carolina — and would close with such states as Wyoming and Hawaii.

- The purpose of ordering the states according to the margin of victory is to help the parties determine which candidates can appeal to those states that have found themselves most recently on the Electoral Divide. A narrow margin in the general election is reflective of an evenly divided electorate. In this scenario, a candidate who appeals to, say, Florida and Montana is more likely to appeal to a greater number of Americans on the whole.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Fairness

- Iowa and New Hampshire might object to this new system, given their longstanding tradition of being the first states to cast their ballots. However, so long as Iowa and New Hampshire retain their record of being fairly bipartisan states, they’ll maintain their position towards the front of the primary schedule.

- Just because a state should have its primary later in the season does not mean that that state will prove invaluable to the process. Indiana and North Carolina weren’t held until May 6th, but those two states might have very well decided the fate of the 2008 Democratic nomination.

- This new system allows other states to play a greater role in how the parties select their candidates. For example, Missouri and North Carolina would be two of the states to get the limelight in 2012. Likewise, based on the results to come in November of 2012, a still-different slate of states could have a more significant role come 2016. A rotating system will be healthier and fairer.

Groupings of Five, and Timing & Spacing

- By placing states into groupings of five, no one state will be overly emphasized on any given date.

- Candidates will still need to address the concerns of individual states, whilst having to maintain an overall national platform. For example, a candidate will be less able to campaign against NAFTA in Ohio whilst campaigning for it in Florida.

- Given that each state has its own system for electing its delegates, these groupings of five states will act as an overall balancer. Ideally, caucuses will be done away with altogether by 2012. However — should that not happen — states with caucuses, states with open primaries, and states with closed primaries can all coexist within a grouping, therefore no one system will hold too much influence on any given date.

- Racial and geographic diversity in this process has been a great concern for many. The narrowest margins of victory in 2008 were in a wide variety of regions — the Midwest, the Great Lakes, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, and the West.

- All parties would have an interest in addressing these narrow-margined states early on. The incumbent will want to win over those states that were most in doubt of him in the previous election, and opposing parties will want to put forth candidates who have the best chance of winning over those very same states.

- Primaries will be held biweekly, giving candidates and the media enough time to process and respond to the outcomes of each wave of primaries.

- Washington DC will be placed in the same grouping as whichever state — Virginia or Maryland — is closer to its own margin of victory.

- American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Americans Abroad — not having Electoral votes of their own — will determine their own primary dates, so long as they occur between the first grouping and the last grouping.
Under these guidelines, the proposed calendar for the 2012 primary season is:

January 2012

Tue, 1/10

Missouri
North Carolina
Indiana
Florida
Montana

Tue, 1/24

Ohio
Georgia
Virginia
Colorado
South Dakota

Tue, 2/7

North Dakota
Arizona
South Carolina
Iowa
New Hampshire

Tue, 2/21

Minnesota
Pennsylvania
Texas
Nevada
West Virginia

Tue, 2/26

Mississippi
Wisconsin
New Jersey
New Mexico
Tennessee

Tue, 3/6

Kansas
Nebraska
Oregon
Kentucky
Michigan

Tue, 3/20

Washington
Maine
Louisiana
Arkansas
Alabama

Tue, 4/3

Connecticut
California
Illinois
Delaware
Maryland
Washington DC

Tue, 4/17

Alaska
Idaho
New York
Massachusetts
Rhode Island

Tue, 5/1

Utah
Oklahoma
Wyoming
Vermont
Hawaii

WHY WE PROTEST 

WHY  WE  PROTEST

submitted by an anonymous PUMA

In this historic election year, when the press has been interested, it has expressed confusion regarding why some Clinton supporters won’t get behind Obama and support the Democratic Party.  Many commentators, news analysts, op-ed journalists and others have stated that it seems unfathomable that someone who supports Clinton’s values and platform would not support Obama.  What they fail to realize, however, is that the issue goes far beyond candidate preference.  The core of the issue now lies in how the candidate came to be the Democratic Party’s nominee in the first place.

It is has often been stated that Obama won fair and square and Clinton’s supporters, who have been described as “bitter”, “vitriolic”, and “rabid”, need to “get over it”.  However, Obama did not “win” fair and square, and herein lies the problem.

Media

• The media was calling upon Senator Clinton to drop out of the race after Senator Obama won the Iowa caucus and continued the pressure her to drop out of the race throughout the primaries.  This was done despite what ultimately resulted in Clinton winning more primaries than any other candidate in history.  In a refreshing and well researched piece, journalist Eric Boehlert (4/30/08, Media Matters for America) describes the media’s pressure placed upon Senator Clinton to drop out of the race as being “unprecedented”.  He notes that, historically, there has been no example of the media intervening in the primary process by telling a candidate when they should end their campaign.  Boehlert cites numerous examples in the press, ranging from small city newspapers to national publications such as The Washington Post providing example after example of the media’s relentless pressure for Clinton to drop out.

• The media did not vet Senator Obama, and instead gave him a free pass on numerous very important issues that deserved scrutiny.  The mass media literally swooned over Senator Obama from the get go, from the now famous references about getting chills up his let uttered by Chris Mathews on MSNBC to gushing op-ed pieces in which even journalists themselves commented that they had to make an effort “not to drink the cool aid”.  The debates between Obama and Clinton revealed enormous discrepancies regarding how the candidates were treated.  And after the final debate, moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos ended, the media pounded with voracity, claiming the debate was “shoddy”, “despicable” and “embarrassing”.  Why?  It appears that Senator Obama was finally held to the same degree of scrutiny as Clinton.  Meanwhile, as Obama enjoyed cheers, support, sympathy and applause from the media, Clinton was persistently painted in a negative light.  She was cast as a “shrill”, “driven solely by ambition” “untrustworthy” candidate who only got to where she is today because of her husband.  The media pounded away, day after day, with disrespectful caricatures of Clinton, leaving no stone unturned.  They ridiculed her laugh, her body size and form, her wrinkles, her earrings, her “bitchiness” her emotional “instability”.  The Gallop Poll, among others, validated that most in the country agreed that Clinton (and McCain) were treated more harshly by the press than Obama.

DNC

• The DNC was calling on Senator Clinton to drop out of the race early on in the primaries.

• The DNC, repeatedly referring to “rules”, initially “punished” Florida and Michigan for holding their primaries earlier than they had been allowed to do, depriving millions of voters from having their votes fully and honestly represented.  On May 31, 2008, The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to give the Florida delegation a half vote each.  The committee’s ruling pertaining to Michigan was even more complex, whereby the committee allocated votes to Senator Obama that had literally not been case for him.  Both Michigan and Florida were states where Senator Clinton won.  Once Senator Obama’s nomination appeared secured well in advance of the convention, the Obama campaign and the DNC then decided to give Florida and Michigan full voting privileges.  Their willingness to make a dramatic shift in their position regarding the rules leaves anything thinking person suspect as to their motives for their decisions and the timing of these choices.

• The DNC did not defend Senator Clinton when the media bombarded the American public with relentlessly biased coverage, coverage that often treated Senator Clinton in a disrespectful way due to her gender.  While Senator Clinton was subjected to a deluge of outrageous treatment by the media, the Obama campaign and the DNC fell silent.  After the fact, Howard Dean offered a sad excuse by saying that he doesn’t watch television.  And, two weeks after Senator Clinton suspended her campaign, Speaker Nancy Pelosi half-heartedly acknowledged that Clinton had been subjected to sexist treatment by the media.

• Although Senator Clinton ultimately won more primaries than any candidate in history and won the popular vote, the DNC continued to press her to withdraw from the race throughout the primary season.  In so doing, they sent the message that they already had the candidate in mind who they wanted to be their nominee, irrespective of the fact that millions and millions of Democrats continued to go to the polls to cast their vote for Senator Clinton.

Super Delegate Votes Bought

• It appears that Super Delegates votes were bought and that the dollars show a heavy financial influence from the Obama campaign, in particular. Per Foon Rhee’s 2/14/08 article in The Boston Globe, since 2005, Senator Obama’s pac contributed over $694,000 to the political campaigns of various superdelegates as compared to a total of $195,000 in contributions from Senator Clinton’s pac during that same time period. In addition, at the time the article was written, nearly half of the 81 superdelegates who had already come out in support of Senator Obama had received donations that totaled more than a quarter of a million dollars. In contrast, only 13 of the 109 superdelegates (less than 10%) who had announced their support for Senator Clinton had received contributions and the total amount of those contributions was less than $100,000. In sum, Obama’s pac gave more money to more superdelegates who came out in support of him, compared to Clinton’s pac which gave far less money, if any, to a much smaller percentage of the superdelegates who supported her candidacy.

Caucus System and Voter Fraud

• The very nature of a caucus system is undemocratic and disenfranchises voters.  Succinctly stated in The News Tribune (Tacoma, WA) regarding the caucus system, “This method of nominating presidential candidates is outdated, undemocratic and limiting.”  Huge blocks of voters are disenfranchised for countless reasons, including those that are too old or ill to attend a caucus, people working split shifts, those who working in the helping professions who must be on call 24/7, people whose religious obligations prohibit them form being able to partake of a caucus held at a specific time, parents with young children, those who are unable to cope with the often hectic and disorganized environment of a caucus, voters with no transportation to get them to and from caucus sites that are often far from home, as well as voters who may not want to announce their vote (typically a very private thing) in public in front of friends and neighbors.

• Voter fraud and intimidation was rampant in many states, particularly caucus states.  Clinton supporters were accosted, some were even physically attacked.  Sign in sheets were stolen, rules were not followed, and votes from people who did not live in the county or who were not living at all were registered, individuals voted without having to show any identification, among other offenses, all to the benefit of Senator Obama.  The litany of violations is long and disturbing and is documented in pain staking detail in an ongoing research project initiated and written by Dr. Lynette Long.

Rigged Democratic Convention

• In the days leading up to the Democratic convention, the Obama campaign and the DNC made it clear that having Senator Clinton’s name placed in nomination was not a done deal.  Senator Obama engaged in negotiations with Senator Clinton regarding this issue and it appeared from several press reports that Senator Obama had the ultimate power and final say so on this issue.  With precious few days remaining until the convention, in order to ensure Senator Clinton’s name be placed in nomination, many pledged delegates began to collect the required number of signatures to be presented on the convention floor as an alternative avenue toward this goal.  Some states discouraging pledged delegates from collecting signatures, urging them to hold off until the results of these negotiations were known.  At the same time, Senator Obama’s campaign began contacting delegates to inquire into how they planned to vote.

• The Democratic Convention roll call vote was a sham.  Per an August 27^th, 2008 CNN report replete with video footage, pledged delegates were pressured before voting to avoid any “drama” on the convention floor.  The subtext being quite obvious: Cast your vote for Senator Obama in order to reduce the number of votes for Senator Clinton during the roll call thereby skewing the results so as not to reveal how very close this election was.  Video tapes from the breakfast meetings of the California delegation at the convention show speaker after speaker touting Obama, calling for delegates to chant “We will unite” and “Yes we can”.  What message did such relentless speeches send to delegates who were pledged to cast their vote as assigned, each vote reflecting thousands of Democratic voters who went to the polls during the primary to cast their vote, 18 million of whom cast their vote for Clinton.  Ultimately, the roll call vote was a sham and did not even come close to reflecting Senator Clinton’s historic achievement.  As of this writing, all of what went on behind the scenes has yet to come to light.  From what we know thus far, it is apparent the vote was rigged.  Unlike Jesse Jackson’s historic campaign for the Democratic nominee in 1984 when his name was placed in nomination and his 465 ½ delegate votes were accurately recorded for the history books, Senator Clinton’s delegate votes ultimately did not reflect the will of the voters.  As a result, the fact that she won more primaries than any candidate in history and that she was a woman will forever remain obliterated from the official record.

This is what many of us are railing against.  We cannot support a candidate or a party that selects a candidate in the face of so many egregious acts.  Nor can we support a candidate or a party that condoned and nurtured such corruption.  It goes against the very fabric of our democracy.

This is why in past years many of us who had our preferred candidate lose the nomination but who still voted for the Democratic ticket cannot do so this year.  Because this is about far more than the fact that our candidate “lost”.  This is about the very nature of how Barack Obama came to be the nominee.  The journey has been anything but fair and square, honest and open.

For many of us who are Democrats, it is unacceptable for our party to operate in this way.  We will not tolerate it.  It will not stand.

The fact that Barack Obama is so inexperienced and has a history of affiliating himself with highly questionable characters is bad enough.  The fact that the Democratic Party selected him as they have and exhibited a tolerance for misogyny and fraud is even worse.   It would appear from an analysis of the data, that the Obama campaign and the Democratic party stole the election from Senator Clinton.

So, yes, we do protest and will do so for as long as we see fit.  This is America, after all.  We treasure our democratic values.  And we hold our right to dissent and speak out freely in the face of wrong doing near and dear.

Reforming the Primary Calendar

 

One from the vaults, given today’s theme…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-bower/reforming-the-primary-cal_b_90903.html

 

 

TONIGHT at 8pm EST — “DELEGATE NIGHT” on “No We Won’t” P.U.M.A. Radio !!

 

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/NO-WE-WONT/2008/08/18/NO-WE-WONT

 

Please join us tonight (at 8pm EST) for yet another action packed show!

Dr. Lynette Long (of http://www.lynettelong.com/caucusfraud) will be joining us to tell us about how — had it not been for the the anti-democratic nature of this year’s caucuses (and of caucusing in general) — that it would actually be Hillary Clinton who would now have the delegate lead today. 

Then, Michele Thomas of the HRC 300 Delegates petition will be with us to discuss the continued importance of that petition, and will be joined by Sacha Millstone (whose delegate status was threatened by the Colorado Democratic Party) and Deb Bartosevich (the Wisconsin delegate who *did* lose her delegate status). 

Listen in and learn how your party officials are subverting your vote.

Thank you,

Will Bower & Sheri Tag

“No We Won’t” P.U.M.A. Radio