So, the rules can be changed in the midst of the nominating contest, after all.
The Democratic Party on Monday approved Puerto Rico’s proposal to scrap its caucus and hold a presidential primary on June 1.
A primary will give more voters a chance to take part in the nominating process, said Puerto Rico Democratic Chairman Roberto Prats…
Puerto Rico will have 55 delegates at stake in its primary, and will award them proportionally.
Fifty five delegates is one more than South Carolina and two fewer than Iowa. I wonder how the number is chosen, given that the formula in states (and the District of Columbia) takes into account the state’s tendency to vote Democratic in the general election. Puerto Rico, of course, does not vote in general elections for President.
So, after about 95% of the elected delegates have been allocated, a territory that is not technically part of the United States gets to change its rules so as to give more of its voters a theoretical chance of determining a presidential candidate that they would have no right to vote for.
Is this a great party, or what?
Maybe its their revenge for not having the vote–tossing another kink into the overall process.
Seed planted by Steven Taylor — 26 March 2008 @ 20:48
From Caucus to Primary in PR
A little last-minute changeroo in Puerto Rico.
Scion grafted by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » — 26 March 2008 @ 20:49
A great party would not disfranchise 2 entire states in order to preserve the sacred principle of never changing the rules when you’re staying the course, especially when that high, sacred and indefeasible principle is subject to change at pleasure.
Seed planted by Alan — 26 March 2008 @ 21:13
Alan, no state is being “disenfranchised” by the Democratic Party rules. Florida and Michigan are completely free to hold their primaries right now. Clinton and Obama agreed to not campaign in those states prior to their unsanctioned primaries, and Obama wasn’t even on the Michigan ballot. No possible reliable result to come from such a scenario.
Seed planted by Greg — 26 March 2008 @ 21:37
Seems to me we already discussed Mich and Fla, without resolution (as I see it), anyway.
But the possible PR precedent value did occur to me. If the rules can be changed now for PR, why not for the two states? But what form such a rules change might take is not clear to me.
I would like gently to push folks wanting to talk about Mich and Fla back to the other thread, unless the comment also touches on Puerto Rico.
Seed planted by MSS — 26 March 2008 @ 22:08
They’re not breaking any rules. The rule was don’t make the date in January. Its not January anymore.
Seed planted by tree — 27 March 2008 @ 20:56