Why The Democratic Party Should Change Its Name

A reasonably intelligence person could easily deduce that a political party calling themselves "Democrats" would in fact be supporters of democracy. But recent decisions threaten to remove an element of the democratic rights of Michiganders and Floridians. Howard Dean, in a draconian move, has threatened both states with the removal of their delegates to the nominating convention if they don't adhere to the rule that leaves Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina in control of the early portion of the election.

Both the Republicans and Democrats have mandated that no states other than the ones they handpick will be allowed to hold primaries before February 5th, 2008. States that hold their primaries before that date, such as Michigan, who is very close to approving a January 15th move, and Florida, who has moved theirs to January 29th, risk losing all their delegates to the Democratic nominating committee, and half to the Republican.

This decision is stupid and wrong on multiple fronts. First off, why are Democrats making hay in a state that has at least twice now lost them a national election? Florida has turned into a massive swing state, one the Democrats need to make a play for in 2008, and shutting them down like that is going to piss them off royally. Why alienate them? Michigan isn't exactly a solid blue state either. We could fall on either side of the line, despite recent Democratic gains here. The state is last in economic growth in the nation, as we watch our auto jobs fly every which way around the globe, and we want answers. Shutting down our voice will only force us to look at the candidates who will actually listen to us, which leaves only the Republicans.

Florida is threatening legal action against the Democrats over the issue. But there's something bigger at stake here than just political fallout, it's the biggest issue of all. That issue, is who gets a voice in choosing our national leader. Why do the same two states, who don't represent a true cross section of America, get to be out in front? Why is it only two other states, as olive branches to the southern and western regions get added (South Carolina and Nevada)? And now the Democrats and Republicans have created a system which makes it advantageous to try and have the earliest possible primary, as the earlier the primary, the further ahead you are, and the more campaign stops you get, which increases the power of your voice. Now 30 some states are bunched together on February 5th, four are out in front, all of which are getting major campaign stops and dollars, and a couple might not get anything. Most every Democratic candidate has already pledged to ignore democracy, ahem, I mean to adhere to the Democratic Party by not even campaigning in states that have primaries before February 5th who aren't approved.

So who really wins in this scenario? Americans are being denied the right to vote in their primary because they violate stupid, arbitrary rules that serve a grand minority of voters. The best we Democrats here in Michigan could do I suppose is change party affiliation and all vote for Ron Paul. So long as our votes aren't going to count anyway, we might as well do some damage. But I don't particularly feel like helping the Democrats right now. If there weren't so much riding on this election, I'd almost vote Republican just to spite them, not that the Republicans are much better on this issue, but at least their candidates aren't caving to the pressure by not campaigning here.

Howard Dean, who I once helped campaign for in 2004, should be ashamed of himself.