The primary process and why we shouldn't give up

[rodbailey]

I've just been looking at the primary process for presidential delegates, on a state-by-state basis. I don't know what the rules are in each state with respect to: does the person have to be a declared candidate (in NY as we understood it, no, we could still try to petition to get Gore's name on the ballot); how much does it cost (again, in NY, I don't recall that there was any serious filing fee, but some states have a rather substantial filing fee); how many names, and what is the time frame for collecting these names to place a name on the primary ballot. That being said, when you look at the national scene, everything is focused on "super Tuesday" - Feb. 5, because lots of states have their primaries on that date. However, of the total of a little over 3500 pledged delegates that will go to the convention in Denver, over 800 will be selected in states that vote later and have filing deadlines to put a name on the primary ballot in January or later. That's almost 1/4 of the pledged delegates will come from states where there might still be a possibility to put Gore's name on the ballot. There are also, by agreement, I guess, about 800 delegates that go as "unpledged" delegates. The total number of delegates is just over 4300. So, if you or a friend live in any of the following states, get to work and see what's required to get a name on the primary ballot: Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. This time, don't let the algore.org or draftgore.com people stop you. This is your election, not some web-master who gets a secret message from some un-named source "close" to Gore. If the man really doesn't want to run, let him say that and then we'll all go away. (See earlier posts about how the efforts in NY, CA, and MA got stopped.) His comments today on the CNN interview certainly left the door ajar and, it almost sounded like it was ready to swing open. Let's give it a push.

[rosesaylavee]

1. So you think he will bypass

Super Tuesday altogether?

[rodbailey]

2. Yes

Don't think he has much choice at this point. Almost all the filing deadlines have passed. There are a few that are Dec. 14 or 17 so I suppose, depending on those State's rules and regs., that he might be able to get in. But, if it involves signatures on a petition, I don't see how he could do that.

[Pastiche423]

3. This is what I have been searching for...

I think:

Another important result of the 1968 election was that it led to several reforms in how the Democratic Party chose its presidential nominees. After the election, many of McCarthy and Kennedy's supporters gained control of the party machinery, and for the 1972 election they passed a number of initiatives designed to make the nomination process more democratic. A key initiative took the nominating process out of the hands of the party bosses by greatly enlarging the number of states which held presidential primaries. After 1968 the only way to win the party's presidential nomination was through the primary process; Humphrey turned out to be the last nominee of either major party to win his party's nomination without having directly competed in the primaries.


Does this mean a candidate must compete in at least one primary, or all primaries?

[rodbailey]

4. I'm not sure I've got the answer, but

with a lot of uncommitted delegates, I think they are free to vote for anyone whose name gets put up at the convention. But, you raise an interesting question. Time to do a little research. Thank heavens for Google.

[lildreamer316]

5. Is there not a late registration window?

I could have sworn I saw something about that somwhere. No help, I am.
<off to Google right along with ya>

[Andrea]

8. If I remember correctly (and I'll try to find a reference) --

What this refers to is that pre-1972 most states didn't hold primaries. Most states had caucuses and there was some control over who could vote in the caucuses, thus someone like Humphrey could gain a lot of delegates without having anyone vote for him other than the "party bosses" referred to in your quote. (Once RFK was assassinated, Gene McCarthy was the front runner but he was seen as too much of a peacenik.)

It doesn't rule out a brokered convention or place a requirement of running in primaries on any candidate. So, hypothetically, if we arrived at the convention with a close three-way split among Clinton, Edwards and Obama, if no one reached the threshold after so many ballots, those candidates, all three or just two of them, could enter into an agreement. For example, Obama could agree to release his delegates to Clinton in return for a VP slot OR, and this is what I hope for, 2 or 3 of them could agree on Gore as a consensus candidate and release their delegates. Then, they address their delegates and tell them that they are released and urge them to vote for Gore (in this example, or whomever). Generally, the delegates agree to vote for whomever their candidate asks them to.

You see this in situations where they want to have a unanimous candidate. They might run one ballot where they vote for their own delegate, then run another ballot where they all vote for the obvious winner. I guess they do it for party unity and to come out strong from the convention.

If the released delegates won't vote for whomever their candidate asks them to, that's a whole different story. I think then we are getting into uncharted territory, but I do think that once released a delegate is free to vote for the candidate of their choice, although the usual protocol is to follow the direction of the candidate they were originally pledged to.

With all this in mind, if Gore doesn't get into any primaries, or only into a few, the best we can hope for is that the vote is all over the place. If we got to the convention with Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Biden and Richardson (for example) each having about 20% of the delegates, none of them would be close to getting the nomination and there would be a real need for a consensus candidate. I think Gore would be the obvious choice. It is possible, though not likely, that the candidates and party leaders could work out some deal where they try to have someone we haven't thought about - say Dick Durbin - end up being the candidate purely because he was the only one everyone (or enough people) could agree on. I don't see that happening, though. I think Gore has such a level of respect and is so electable, that if it comes to a brokered convention he'll be our candidate. And that would set us up for a huge win in November, in my opinion, not only because Gore is such a desirable candidate, but because becoming the nominee by "popular acclaim" as it were, would surely bring any fence-sitters and a lot of third party voters to our side.

[Pastiche423]

11. Thank you!

May I ask where you got your information? I've been googling for days and all I could come up w/is the post you responded to.

[Andrea]

14. You're Welcome

I wrote the post from my memory of the process, taught to me at my mother's knee, and my avid convention watching since I was 8 years old. I've been looking for a good, succinct online history of the nominating process and haven't had much luck.

This Wikipedia entry, entitled "United States Presidential Nominating Convention" has most of the pertinent information, although it's not as explicit as I wish it was. The sections with the relevant information are "Voting" and "History".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_nominating_convention

I'll continue to look for a more detailed explanation, but this is a start, at least.

[Andrea]

15. Okay, here's another

This is an interview with Michael Beschloss from PBS Newshour back in 1996. It' a very interesting what he says near the end about the possibility of a brokered convention:

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: We will never see another seriously brokered convention unless you see a couple of things. There is a possibility that you would have a primary process that results in a number of candidates not having enough votes to win. It's fairly unlikely but not impossible. Another possibility is if Americans finally say that the presidential primary process is in conventions, perhaps in caucuses, and that the idea of this is that you bring in delegates from various sections of the party with different types of expertise, and perhaps that mix will produce a better nominee than simply voters, for instance, in New Hampshire who may have never heard of the candidate a couple of weeks earlier and have seen him only in television commercials. It's not likely that that's going to happen, though, because Americans have a very strong tradition. Once they're given a measure of power, such as voting directly for presidential nominees, they are very reluctant to give it back.

Here's the link:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/convention96/retro/beschloss_history.html

[TheDoorbellRang]

6. If he DID declare his candidacy

would write-in votes count? I guess I'm thinking that most of the folks who vote in primaries are the hard-core political junkies (like us), so if a write-in campaign was feasible, it could also work. What do you think?

[rodbailey]

7. Why not?

They have to count all the votes, right? (Except, of course if it's Florida or Ohio or the Supreme Court. I spent the last 3 weeks of the 2004 campaign in Akron, OH and followed all the voting inconsistencies that turned up after the votes had been counted and the election given to the Texas idiot. Fortunately we have a Dem. administration in charge in Ohio this time around so there may be hope things will go better). Of course it will take time to count write-ins because each ballot with a write-in will have to be hand examined to make sure the vote is for someone real. So, it would seem if folks in a given state weren't too satisfied with who was on the ballot, and had a real viable alternative, they could be convinced to write that person's name in. Can't be that complicated, can it?

[Andrea]

10. I live in Columbus

In 2006 we elected Dems to 4 out of 5 state-wide offices, including the all-important SOS, and Sherrod Brown to the Senate (love that guy). If our voting process isn't fair this time, I'm headed for Norway.

[Andrea]

9. I believe I saw it posted somewhere here recently

that write-in votes don't count if the person that is written in hasn't declared themself a write-in candidate.

[rodbailey]

16. Might not always be the case,

For instance I know that NH allows write-ins to count whether the person has agreed to allow that or not. And hey, how's Columbus these days? I spent a little time there at OSU on a sabbatical about 3 life-times ago. I also spent 4-5 lively years in the Cleveland area (4 at Cleveland State University as a Chem. prof. in the mid-60's - at the time of the Kent shootings, in fact). In 2004, in addition to about 3 weeks in Akron I was in Cincinnati for 2 weeks earlier in the campaign cycle. Glad I could help get Sherrod and Ted elected when I was out in Akron in 2006.

[Andrea]

18. Might not

I can't find the post so far. It might have been referring to a specific state.

Columbus is great. If you haven't been here in 3 life-times, you would not recognize it. The city has grown enormously. We are now the biggest city in the state, although Cleveland has a larger metro area. And Columbus is very solidly blue. It's nice to live among your own kind. When I go out to the exurbs to see my siblings, I feel like I'm in enemy territory. I feel sorry for people who have to live in red areas.

I'm involved in the Indie Cap movement, wherein Columbus is staking it's claim to the title Independent Arts Capital of the World. It's a title richly deserved. There is all kinds of cool stuff going on here.

The Kent State shootings. May 4, 1970. I was ten years old and cried and cried. My R parents were dismayed with me. Thanks for your help getting the good guys elected!

edited to add: "with me" They were furious with the students and not too dismayed with the National Guard or our four-term governor, Jim Rhodes, who sent the guard out, but they didn't like their oldest child being a little leftie.

[SharonRB]

20. Not sure about other states, but that is the case

here in Michigan.

[TheDoorbellRang]

22. But would write-in votes count IF Al declares himself a candidate?

That would seem a less iffy proposition for Gore than hoping none of the other candidates is a sure shot.

[Andrea]

24. In that case, I'm pretty sure they would

[TheDoorbellRang]

26. OK. Here's some info from my state, Illinois

From page 10:

F. WRITE-IN CANDIDATE PROCEDURES
For the Consolidated Primary and Consolidated Election, write-in votes shall be counted only for individuals who have filed with the election authority or authorities a notarized “Declaration of Intent to be a Write-In Candidate” no later than 5:00 p.m. on the Tuesday immediately preceding the election.
<10 ILCS 5/7-59, 17-16.1, 18-9.1>

http://www.elections.il.gov/Downloads/ElectionInformation/PDF/07Canguideandforms.pdf

This Illinois election guide seems to be referencing state elections, with no mention of presidential elections, but it looks promising, I think. I'll see what else I can find...

[Andrea]

28. That's great info

We need to find that regulation for each state.

[Andrea]

25. And actually

I think the best situation would be to have massive amounts of write-ins together with no other candidate having enough delegates to win. That way, it would make him even more the obvious choice for nominee and set him up even better for the general - but only if those write-in votes were counted. So, we could have a two-pronged strategy, in states where write-ins count, write-in Gore; in states where write-ins don't count, vote for anyone but the front runner. But, again, we need to wait to hear what happens on the 17th.

[TheDoorbellRang]

27. I'm liking your strategy!

:applause:

[rodbailey]

32. Ohio election law - maybe

I was looking at stuff on the SOS site for Ohio and it looks like a person who wanted to circulate petitions to be an at-large delegate does not have to have a particular candidate say that that's ok. In other words, you could circulate at-large delegate petitions with the intent of voting at the convention for Gore, but he would not have to know that. Now, I'm not sure how many at-large delegates there are from Ohio and how stiff the competition is for that, etc. And, I didn't look closely enough to see what the situation might be about write-ins, although for a state as big as Ohio, and unless there were a major publicity effort undertaken, I suspect the write-in thing might not produce much. If you could, I would suggest a visit to your local Dem. headquarters and find someone who knows the rules and regs. Much easier than wading through manuals from the SOS's office and you get to meet new people, perhaps. Anyway, I'll be suggesting (or at least trying to) this sort of thing tomorrow evening when the algore.org folks have their conference call. I'll see if I can have them spring free their list of all the folks for Ohio who signed up on that web site to urge Gore to run. I have the list for NY from them and it is a potential goldmine for contacts because you have everyone's e-mail address. It's an easy way to get in touch with folks who have been pulling for Gore to run.

[Andrea]

12. Reading between the lines:

We Gore supporters have to be completely dedicated to reading between the lines :) don't we? After reading what he said on CNN this morning, it kind of sounds like there might already be a plan in the works. Specifically saying, "it will be as a candidate for president", makes me think there is some kind of contingency plan in place. I tend to be overly optimistic, but given that I believe a brokered convention with Gore emerging as the nominee would lead to a landslide in November, could it be that party leaders are already looking at that possibility and have broached the subject with Gore himself? I think this could really be the case. It would explain his "trust me" comments, too.

[TheDoorbellRang]

17. Thank you, Andrea

All you have posted here on how he could still be our candidate has been most enlightening. I had been convinced since last spring after reading TAOR that he would run, since I am firmly of the opinion that he alone fully grasps and could deal with both the climate crisis AND our constitutional crisis. Neither situation can wait another eight years to be addressed, which is why I had decided his time for the presidency is now. So of course, this autumn has been torturous. I can't get my hopes up again, but I'm still in stoic, stubborn, waiting mode.

[Andrea]

19. You're welcome

I couldn't agree with you more that he is the only possible candidate that really grasps both issues.

I'm thinking that we should see what happens on December 17th and then come up with a strategy. As of now, it seems to me that we should encourage people to vote for anyone in the primaries except the frontrunner at the time they vote. This would probably help keep the candidates even. So, for example, as we get down to the wire on Iowa, if candidate X is in the lead, vote for anyone but X. If candidate Y wins the Iowa caucuses, NH should vote for anyone but Y, and so on, rolling through the whole primary season. I think this would be the best way to get to the primary with no candidate having enough delegates to win the nomination.

Of course, this is predicated on Gore not being on any primary ballots, and without knowing what will happen on the 17th. So, we need to wait and see what happens then, because it sounds like from what Rod has said, it could be something that would materially effect our situation.

[SharonRB]

21. What's happening on December 17?

[Andrea]

23. I thought it was in this thread, but it's not

Check Rod Bailey's comments in the thread in GD, "GORE: If I did get back into the political process, it would be as a CANDIDATE for PRESIDENT". (emphasis in original)

Or, better yet, search RodBailey and look at all his comments. He doesn't have very many postings, and all of them are substantive.

[rosesaylavee]

29. Here's a link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=260&topic_id=2580&mesg_id=2603

[SharonRB]

30. Thanks.

I checked it out already. Doesn't tell me much. Guess we'll just have to wait.

[rosesaylavee]

31. Yep.

waiting. again.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. I think we are on to something here, folks!!!!!!

:bounce: