If the nominee is chosen before my state's primary, ...

[Walt Starr]

I live in Illinois and it is quite possible that my vote won't matter at all, effectively disenfranchising me from the choice of the Democratic nominee.

Assuming that is the case, my argument is that morally, there is nothing wrong with me deciding that since the Democratic Party disenfranchised me from choosing the nominee I have every right to decide that nominee is not worthy of my vote in the General Election. As the nominee is already chosen before I get to vote, the only place I have a voice in the Democraatic Party presidential choice is the General Election.

I also must say, I will express my dissatisfaction should this be the case by how I choose to vote in the General Election. If I have no say in the choice of the party, the party cannot expect to get my vote.

[corporatewhore]

1. I think you are right I also think they should make particpation more

democratic and accessible

[Walt Starr]

2. Heh, I may be voting for Kucinich in the primaries

he may be the only one left besides Kerry by the time my state has a primary.

If that's the case, I'll vote for Dennis. Kerry will never get my vote.

[shoopnyc123]

3. Naw, this one's gonna go down...

to the wire...

[rucky]

39. THAT'S the way to protest it, Walt

Nothing to lose if Kucinich finishes stronger than expected in the primaries. If that doesn't get the nominee's attention, than it's his election to lose.

It's a better battle to fight than repeating 2000. You can get your point across without risking handing * another win.

[Walt Starr]

40. I will be officially "Undecided"

should Kerry get the nomination. I will not reveal who my final choice is either.

[greatauntoftriplets]

4. I'll do a write-in if necessary.

Did that in the governor's race in 2002. The local precinct workers didn't like it, but at least I speak my peace.

[patricia92243]

5. Same situation- my state's vote is so late it might as well not happen.

Then to add insult to injury - my state is Republican. I can't win!

[Myra]

6. My primary is Feb 7; I'm voting for Clark. Period. After the convention

I'm voting for the Dem nominee. Period.

[Walt Starr]

8. I'll vote for Dean so long as his name is on the ballot

I cannot say I will vote for whomever is nominated.

[edzontar]

38. Me too. I am in PA, and am sure it will be "too late."

But I will never vote for an IWR supporter, unless it comes down to a 2-way race between Kerry and anyone else, in which case i shall pull the lever for Kerry's opponent--even it is Edwards.

Here's my list, in order:

1. DEAN!!!!
2. Dennis K
3. Clark
4. Sharpton
5. Edwards
6. Kerry
7. LIEberman

[greatauntoftriplets]

9. Illinois primary is March 16.

wish it was as early as yours so we could have a say.

[Myra]

18. I'm very glad my primary is reasonably early. And I expect WA to

go for Clark.

[leyton]

7. It's a trade-off,

although one I don't think the party handles well.

The primaries have to start small, so that candidates can compete. No candidate, except maybe Dean, can finance a national campaign to win a primary. So if we all voted at once, it would give an enormous advantage to whoever was the most well-funded. So we start with a few small states to narrow the field and focus resources on the candidates that survive those primaries. It's a necessary evil.

However, what the party ought to do is rotate the primaries. There are plenty of small states other than Iowa and New Hampshire. In my opinion, they ought to, for example, in 2008 start with Connecticut and then go to North Carolina and then have a primary in Wisconsin. It's the same three regions that are represented by Iowa, NH, and SC; but they need to be in different states and in a different order each year. Also, there needs to be more emphasis on the Southwest, because those states are becoming more important to the Democratic party. Either NM or Arizona needs to be pulled out of Feb 3 and given its own date at least some of the time, like Iowa and NH at the moment.

But having a national primary is simply not an option, because that requires every candidate to have lots and lots of money, which disenfranchises people in a different way by reducing their choices.

[Walt Starr]

12. If Kerry is named the winner before March 16th

I guarantee you, I will not vote for him come November 2nd. I played no role in the choice and my voice would have not been heard so the only way to demonstrate my dissatisfaction with the choice is to not vote for that choice.

[Dark Star]

41. Please recall you will then in effect

be voting for Bush.

Think: The Judiciary.

[Walt Starr]

43. If that's what it takes, so be it

If the Democrats expect me to vote for a sacrifical lamb I played no role in choosing, to heck with them!

[leyton]

51. Tell me...

If Dean had won the Iowa caucuses and the NH primaries, would you vote for him? You still wouldn't have had a voice. Or does it hinge on whether Iowa or NH reject the guy you're pulling for?

[Nazgul35]

10. you can still vote for Dean in the primary!

His name will not be taken off the ballot?

How are you disenfranchised because the other primaries have awarded delegates to other candidates?

You theory makes no sense!

[Walt Starr]

13. If everybody else has dropped out by March 16

my vote doesn't mean shit. I've been disenfranchised by the Democratic PArty and hove no choice but to vote against the nominee.

[fishnfla]

29. you said a mouthful

*

[krkaufman]

32. That's different

If your candidate has elected to drop out, you haven't been disenfranchised by the Democratic Party; you have been let down by your candidate -- or they simply didn't have the resources to keep running.

We gotta remember, it takes cash to run a campaign, so someone who hasn't placed well in any primaries is going to have a harder time raising cash -- and will have to drop out, unless they're looking to go massively into debt.

All that being said, if we start seeing a bunch of politicos going around pressuring candidates to drop out -- like say Terry McAuliffe lecturing the candidates that anyone who doesn't win a primary by Feb 8th should drop out -- then *that's* a problem.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. Out here in CA...

we have to wait until early March for our primary -- whivh kind of sucks. It's irritating to be part of the largest, most diverse state in the Union and having next to no impact on the political primary scene.

[bigtree]

14. What other party is competing in as many primaries?

And who would be doin this choosin?

[Walt Starr]

15. There will be a slew of third party candidates on my ballot

come November 2nd.

If Kerry has been chosen as the nominee before MArch 16, I guarantee, some third party candidate will be receiving my vote on November 2nd.

[Renew Deal]

16. Actually you're thinking is wrong.

They are battling for a majority. That means that whether you are voting before someone has a majority or after, you still get to vote. That also means you have a say. I guess you can delete this thread now. :)

[Walt Starr]

17. If the choice is made before I cast my vote

my vote did not count. Period.

If that happens, the choice made before I cast my vote will not be my choice come November 2 if I would not have cast my vote for that choice in my primary.

No deleting of this thread.

[HawkerHurricane]

19. Let's see...

Let's play hypothetical...

We all vote on the same day in the primary (all states and locations...)

I'm in a west coast state, so I vote later...

And, due to circumstances, I don't get off work until late, so it's really late when I vote...

When I get to the polling place, I discover that due to earlier voting, someone has already gotten the magic 50% +1 votes he needs to clinch the nomination before I had arrived...

Therefore, since the majority has decided before my vote was counted, I'm going to take my ball and go home.
Excuse me, I'm going to declare myself disenfranchised and vote for someone else in the general election out of spite.
Excuse me again, I'm going to declare myself disenfranchised and vote for someone else out of principle.

Now, everyone got one vote, just like I did. Everyone had the chance to vote, just like me. But, due to an accident of geography and scheduling, my vote is later than everyone else's and the decision was democraticaly decided by the majority before my vote was in. But since I know the results of the polling before casting my vote, I'm going to be disgruntled and throw a temper tantrum.

Reminds me of the guys in the military who refused to vote since it was always decided before the absentee votes where counted.

[Walt Starr]

21. Hawaii does this all the time

Hawaii finds out their votes don't count and there are strange results out of Hawaii.

Eh, I'll probably not vote for Kerry no matter what anyway.

[Renew Deal]

26. Hawaii stops voting around the same time as Alaska

The votes in Oregon aren't counted until late. Their votes count. Didn't they count in 2000?

[woofless]

30. Bushco thanks you,

Karl Rove LOVES you.

[Walt Starr]

36. If that's what it takes to get real change in four years

so be it.

[Dark Star]

44. If BushCo gets another 4 years,

we may not have elections in 2008. We certainly won't have jobs or healthcare and we will have lots of wars.

[Walt Starr]

47. I don't buy doom and gloom rhetoric

Same stuff was said about Ronnie Raygunzzzzzaaap in '84. We had another election in '88.

Same stuff was said tot he Repugs in '96 abnout voting Dole to get rid of Clinton. We still had an election in '00.

What you are saying is nothing more than rhetoric to do nothing but cause fear. I am no longer susceptible to the fear. Give me a candidate I can actually vote FOR or my protest vote may actually be cast for Bush.

[carpetbagger]

20. Let me tell you what we're up against, i.e., disenfranchisement

I live in Texas. As you may know, our primary was actually moved back a week from March 2 to March 9 so that the GOP could gerrymander the state, including making my congressional district (23) change from a competitive district to a safe GOP district.

So if you think that's just fine, go stand on the sidelines in November. If I'm correct, the last truly competitive primary we had was pretty much decided on the night of the Illinois and Michigan primaries. So sometimes it looms larger than other times, but in the end not every state can be a critical state.

So don't sit on the sidelines on this one. There really is a difference, and as an old Tsongas supporter, as well as a supporter of a guy who could very well be out of the running by my state's date, I can tell you that you'll be quite happy to see George Bush walking into history.

[Walt Starr]

23. I've votd for the Democrat no matter what in every election for more than

two decades.

2004, I might just have to stand on principle and not vote for the Democrat.

[carpetbagger]

27. Are you sure this is the one?

I mean, you guys got to pick the '92 nominee along with Michigan. If I remember right, everyone knew Clinton would rack up Super Tuesday, and then the real fight was Ill/Mi, after which Tsongas suspended his campaign. So Illinois has had it's turn, and will likely have another in the future.

But it would seem clear to me that the most important message about voting to send would be to help show, by a significant margin, the door to George Bush and all that he stands for, and all that he's done. Katherine Harris, election roll scrubbing, rioting operatives, USSC favoritism, election season warmongering, Cleland=Hussein, Colorado, Texas, whoring up 200M using millions of travel funds from the US Treasury. I think that's a potent case.

In the end, nobody will really care how many write-ins x or y gets. They will care about the margin of victory between the two parties. Sure, you'll make yourself feel good with a write-in to vote against the Democratic Party. But if you want to change the country, everyone pile on George.

[Walt Starr]

35. I was not living in Illinois in '92

I was living in Wyoming.

[Nazgul35]

24. There's a reason that the big states go last...

in the primaries....this is because the large battle ground states are more important in the general election....

But that was when we had a somewhat competitive time in the south...

What might work better would be to produce a batch of four state voting days done through a lottery system....

We could seperate each by two weeks beginning in mid january... the schedule would look something like this....

Jan. 15th: 10 states totaling roughly 1000 delegates. Distributed by region and size.

Feb. 1st: 15 states totaling roughly 1000 delegates. Distributed by region and size.

Feb. 15th: 10 states totaling roughly 1000 delegates. Distributed by region and size.

Mar. 1st: 15 states totaling roughly 1000 delegates. Distributed by region and size.

If not by lottery, than by rotation...something like how sports leagues make up the schedules for teams....

[democratreformed]

22. I understand completely, Walt

The ONLY thing that made me change my mind was my grandma. I told her I just don't if I can vote for #$@@*( if he gets the nomination. She said "Oh, but you have to." I am choosing at this time to listen to someone who is much older and wiser that me. I don't plan on changing my mind, but you never know.

[aldian159]

25. I hear you

The system blows. We got way way way more people then IA and NH, yet they're the kingmakers.

Do you have a senate candidate yet? I've spent so much time on the Pres. that i've forgotten the senate.

We live in IL, the state will go Dem regardless or whether you or I vote. So, if it makes you feel better not voting, don't vote.

[theboss]

28. This is insane

First of, it's a primary. There can be no disenfranchisement in a primary because you have no right to vote in a primary. You get to vote with the permission of the parties.

This is like me complaining I didn't get to vote for president of the Lion's Club when I am not a member. You happen to be a member of the club, but the club set up the rules.

I also find it ironic that someone from Illinois is complaining that their voice is not heard. The Daley Machine has basically been choosing the nominee out there for fifty years anyway.

[aldian159]

31. Yes sir!

We are the reason Kennedy got in!

[Walt Starr]

37. Oh, since I have no choice whatsoever, then

I guess the party has no right whatsoever to expect me to vote for their choice.

Thanks for clearing that one up because that now means no Democrat should feel guilty about voting third party instead.

[IndianaGreen]

33. John McCain got 40% of the GOP primary vote in Indiana in 2000

and this was long after McCain had dropped out of the race. This was a protest vote against the GOP establishment in a closed primary.

[Rhiannon12866]

34. I am in the same boat as you are

But I would never refuse to vote. Whoever is the nominee, we all need to get out and vote to take back the White House. We got the most votes in 2000 and we need to do it again. I will vote for anyone but Bush* and hope that you will, as well.

[creativelcro]

42. Well said. Same here in MA.

I'm given no chance to choose. Which means, I'm going Bush as a protest vote.

[Walt Starr]

45. I may actually do the same thing

If the Democrats lose my vote to a third party, it won't say anywhere near as much as if they lose my vote to George Bush himself!

That's a HUGE statement!

[Dark Star]

48. Shall we start a new thread on

how many DUers plan to vote for Bush? :wtf:

[Rhiannon12866]

54. Why would anyone on DU vote for Bush*?!

Isn't evicting the squatter-in-chief from the White House what we're all about?:shrug:

[sangh0]

46. I guess the disenfranchisment of black voters wasn't enough

but having it happen to oneself gets some people thinking

[Walt Starr]

49. I was pissed off about the disenfranchisement of voiters in florida

But IIRC, only the Black Caucus had anything to say about it. Kerry certainly didn't complain.

[genius]

50. I"m voting for Kucinich no matter what

It's a matter of conscience.

[SPAZtazticman]

52. well, unless you want another 4 years of bushco,

youd better vote democratic in november. but on a softer note, i agree with you completely. having the primaries spaced out like this is very unfair. why on earth do iowa and new hampshire desirve such a large voice in the government of our country? all the primaries should be on the same day.

[jsw_81]

53. Bush thanks you, Walt

I can't believe you'd seriously consider staying home just because your idol Governor Dean couldn't cut it in the primaries.

[THUNDER HANDS]

55. why is it unfair

If you candidate drops out, then he drops out.

If he's mathamatically eliminated then, hey, that's the way a primary works.

It's good you're not just thinking of yourself, but of the country and the future of the world as well.

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. You should run as a delegate

And attempt to change the party rules or vote for delegates that will do this.

NOt going to vote for the Democratic nominee? Bush will be happy.