Massachusetts: We may not have enough money to hold the 2012 primary
There’s a possibility that Massachusetts won’t be able to participate fully in the next presidential election.
Secretary of State Bill Galvin says there’s not enough money to run a primary in March 2012, according to Gov. Deval Patrick’s budget for the next fiscal year.
“The number that was submitted by the governor despite the fact that he suggested, or his administration suggested, that it would be a 2 percent cut, in fact is a far more drastic cut. My budget will go down anyways for the coming fiscal year in the elections area because we have one fewer election in the upcoming fiscal year than we did in the last, but nevertheless, it’s a problem to run this March 6, 2012 event based upon the numbers they’ve submitted,” Galvin told WBZ.
I could be wrong, and often actually am, but this strikes me as a budgetary brush back pitch. It’s similar to the cries we always hear every time anyone suggests cutting state or local budgets – “We’ll have to fire police and firefighters!” The actual proposed cuts mean no such thing, and they know it. They just don’t want to have to deal with the cuts, so they make a fuss to get them reconsidered.
That’s how this Massachusetts action strikes me: An attempt to push back rather than show leadership and make tough choices.
Too bad. One of the few things a state government really needs to do is run elections. Not all the fluff that states currently waste money on. If MA chooses to spend its resources elsewhere, well then maybe its citizens need to reevaluate the bad choices they have made in elections past.
If there really is too little money to hold a primary election then there is a simple budget cut to apply to whatever you do hold.
Incumbents will not get a place at the table for the primary or subsequent elections.
If you excluded participation by those who are challengers then you are being undemocratic. By excluding entirely the people with the biggest advantage, and the entire responsibility for playing fair, then you are creating a more level playing field than what currently exists.
In Massachusetts this could result in a power shift not seen since the 18th century. Imagine a state where every corrupt state office were suddenly turned over to someone who was willing to work for real reform.
Step one of revoking elections in 2012: States determine primaries are too expensive and thus cancel them…
Is anyone surprised this is happening in a Blue State? I know I wasn’t…
Remember how PO’d the folks in Massachusetts were way back when over “Taxation without representation”? Wonder how PO’d the modern citizens of the state will be over “Representation without elections”? Think that’s worth fighting for…?
BTW, I’m aware that the alternative they’re pitching is running a caucus, and don’t we all know how rife with fraud those can be? Imagine how it’ll be in a state where they’re more than willing to turn a blind eye to such fraud.
All bet are off!!