Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
They can't.

The US is a federal system.  Primary elections were only instituted in the early 20th century, and are subject to state law.  Different states have different laws, and they always have.

The poor, blacks, and women have all at one time or another been disenfrachised.  Up until the 1840's various states required citizens to hold a certain amount of land property in order to vote.  This led to actual political warfare, that being the kind involving guns and militias, in Rhode Island in 1841 or 1842, called the Dorr Rebellion.  Rhode Island then had a law requiring the ownership of property worth $134 to vote.  By the 1840's this had disenfranchised all but 40% of the white males in the state.  

The story of how the abolition of class limitations on voting changed America is largely unknown, but the story of who women and blacks became able to vote is much better known.

Back to my point.  The DNC can't tell states what to do, they can only threaten to decertify delegates.  And that creates the potential for the final say on the nominee to be determined by superdelegates.  And it also, may force Iowa and New Hampshire to move back their calendars.  So far as I know, there's nothing prohibiting Iowa and New Hampshire from moving back as early as November 9, 2007.

It's a mess, and it's going to be very dependent on Dean as the DNC chair to clean up.  I don't envy his position.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Thu Jun 28th, 2007 at 02:20:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series