"Firehouse" Primaries for Michigan and Florida?

[Pangloss]

Lots of chatter today about the possibility of a new primary in Michigan. Florida governor Charlie Crist is still holding out for a seating of the existing delegates, but that would be hard to rationalize in Michigan, where Obama didn't even appear on the ballot (something I was surprised to hear today).

 

Michigan could hold a new primary as soon as June, but what I thought was interesting (and therefore worth mentioning here) was that the kind of primary they're talking about having is a firehouse primary. That's not a term that you hear every day in on the national level but you do hear from time to time on the local level, especially in the old South. I've heard various definitions for it over the years, but the most common make it sound like a kind of cross between a regular primary and a caucus. It's like a caucus in that you have to show up and indicate your preference to a caucus agent (instead of balloting equipment), but it's like a regular primary in that your ballot is secret. They also tend to run on short notice in few polling places (more like a caucus) and on a thin budget (which is more or less the point).

 

(Unfortunately there's a darker side to that history, especially in the Democratic party, where it was at times used by hardline segregationists to reduce minority influence (or at least you hear people say this from time to time). It would be unfair to raise that spectre in a modern context, though, since South Carolina's primary is considered "firehouse" and Jesse Jackson and Barrack Obama have both been winners under that system.)

 

Regarding Florida, I thought it was interesting to hear today that Republican Governor Crist has the support of Democrats in asking the DNC to pay for a new Florida primary (which would cost around $28 million). My personal opinion is that it should be done regardless of who pays for it, and I'd be happy if we Floridians paid for it ourselves. Better than having our delegates seated as part of a brokered insider deal in which they meant nothing -- that would be no better than having the superdelegates decide things. Blah.

 

Here's an article that discusses some of these issues in the news today:

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igrYLRrHG3P6lIbs2E7pSH0bxhvgD8V7O7HG0

[ecoli]

They aren't going to want to spend the money, and the national party will want to save their money for the general election. I don't see it happening.

 

I'm not sure how the public will respond to a 'firehouse' primary... it'll still have some cost, after all.

[dethfire]

They are talking of doing at home mail in ballots. Bigger turnout and costs less.

[Pangloss]

Mail-in ballots aren't a great answer. It might be cheaper, but it's an untested approach and would likely just lead to litigation and further drawing-out of the process. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who happens to represent the district where I work) was on a local political show today and shot the idea down. She's a senior member of the Clinton campaign so she's got an iron in this fire, but I think she's right that it won't fly with either side. This is not the time for an experiment. But I don't agree with her about the re-vote -- I think that's probably the better way to go, rather than just seating the current delegates.

 

(Wasserman Schultz has become fairly well known of late, as Pelosi's main initiative leader on the floor of the House.)

[iNow]

I don't know much about the limitations of the approach, but I know the idea sounded like a good one when I first heard it. It's cheap, it's quick, and it eliminates problems some people have with unassisted ambulation...

[Pangloss]

Who would be allowed to vote via mail-in ballot if we held a new primary as well.......................................

[iNow]

What do you mean "who would be allowed to vote?" Are you thinking those who voted last time should be disallowed from mail-in? If so, an easy way to overcome that is to dispose of the previous votes and start fresh with an even playing field... but I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

[Pangloss]

What, my ellipses wasn't completely self-explanatory??

 

No, I'm saying disabled people who voted via early voting in January would also be able to do so again during a new (normal) primary this spring. We don't need to have a special mail-only primary just to help out the disabled people, as you were hinting with your ellipses in post #5 above (unless, of course, I misunderstood your ellipses).

[iNow]

Stoopid ellipsis....

[Pangloss]

Just to update this a bit, a Federal appeals court in Atlanta is going to hear on Monday a case from a Florida delegate claiming to have had his constitutional rights violated by the DNC ruling that knocked Florida's delegates out of the convention. The delegate in question is actually a John Edwards supporter and claims to be neutral in the Obama v Clinton saga. The suit was rejected at the district level but accepted in Atlanta on appeal, and they apparently cleared their entire docket for the afternoon to hear arguments.

 

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/03/14/fladelegates_0314.html