No Seats For You!
Recently there has been increasing discussion, sparked initially by NBC Political Director Chuck Todd, about the Clinton campaign's real motives behind pushing for a revote in Florida and Michigan. The likelihood of only modest pledged delegate gains from the two contests suggests that Clinton is, instead, aiming for the superdelegates.
Combined, Michigan and Florida have 54 superdelegates, all of whom were stripped of their status when their states were stripped of their pledged delegates. Among them, Hillary Clinton is expected to have substantially more supporters than Obama, the product of longtime friendships and her advocacy in favor of seating each delegation.
The Obama campaign should argue forcefully that these superdelegates should not be seated in Denver, regardless of what happens with revotes in the state. To be sure, the people of Florida and Michigan had no say in the decision of their states to move their primaries forward. While the original votes in January clearly cannot be counted, a revote does seem to be a reasonable remedy, and one that seems likely to be pursued.
But the superdelegates played a far different role. At the least they were complicit in allowing their states to violate DNC rules. In many cases, they were the leaders of the charge. Not only did they knowingly violate party rules for the sake of increasing their own political influence, they recklessly endangered the voting rights of millions of Democratic voters. They are responsible for the chaos in which the party now finds itself, having done so with the belief that there would be no consequences. It is essential that the national party prove them wrong.
The Clinton campaign will concede that Democrats played a central role in moving the primary up in Michigan. Democratic Senator Carl Levin, a man who has long despised New Hampshire's first-primary status, led a movement that resulted in a bipartisan bill to move the primary to January 15th. That bill was eventually signed into law by Michigan's Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm.
But the Clinton campaign - and many of her supporters - have argued that Florida Democrats had no choice in the matter. In a state with a Republican controlled state legislature and a Republican governor, the Democrats, they argue, were forced to break the DNC rules, entirely against their will. It is, of course, true that the state legislature in Florida is controlled by Republicans and that Governor Charlie Crist is one too. But this argument, like so many disseminated from the Clinton campaign, is deeply deceptive.
After speculation began that Florida might consider moving its primary to January 29th, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson gushed to the Palm Beach Post about the possibility of preprimary candidate forums in Florida; he expected, according to the Post, that the "lure of the delegate-rich early Florida primary" would help convince candidates to attend. Later, when the DNC stripped Florida of its delegates, Senator Nelson took the national party to court.
The bill that would officially move the primary to January passed the State Senate with a vote of 37-2. A week later, the State House passed with bill unanimously, 118-0. In no uncertain terms, this was a bipartisan effort. Then in June, the Florida Democratic Central Committee voted unanimously to support the early primary. The elected officials and party members that make up the Florida superdelegate pool no doubt played integral roles in violating national party rules.
If revoting does take place in either state, it will occur only after the DNC Rules Committee approves a new plan. But, as Karen Thurman of the Florida Democratic Party confirmed, such a new plan will only be produced if it includes the willing participation of both candidates. Each campaign has begun to make separate demands; Clinton, for example, has already ruled out the possibility of caucuses in either state. The Obama campaign should make their own demand, and should be unbending in its insistence:
The Michigan and Florida superdelegates violated the rules of the Democratic Party. They should not be seated at the Democratic convention.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
How is it the fault of the Obama campaign that Florida and Michigan -- in a spectacular spasm of stupidity and myopia -- agreed to not seat their delegates? We get it. If something is unfavorable to the Clinton campaign, there *must* be something nefarious going on. In Game 4 of the 2007 NBA Finals, did the Cavs request that their basket be lowered by a foot in the fourth quarter?
Florida and Michigan did NOT "agree to not seat their delegates". We have been fighting Howard Dean's asanine decision ever since he made it. This is not about Clinton or Obama, please start realizing that, Obama supporters. This is about protecting the integrity of the election process, this is about counting the votes of millions of people in two diverse states. Here is what I deeply wish everyone would understand: no matter which candidate you support, or if you support none of the above, we should ALL be for finding some way to include the voters of FL and MI in the process. Whether that way is to seat the delegates from the primaries already held (which is my preference) or holding "do-overs", the voters should be heard. Surely Obama supporters, who are supposedly all about "inclusion", can see that...or is the "change they can believe in" something far more sinister than the slogan belies, such as "Anything that benefits our guy is good, anything that doesn't, is bad".
When was it that we liberals became strict constructionists?
I am from Michigan and anyone who thinks we shouldn't have a chance to re-vote in a primary, is flat out un-American.
That is right, I said it.
I like Obama, but not when his campaign doesn't support my right to be heard.
And anyone who wants to discuss rules, put a sock in it. You obviously lack the ability to put yourselves into someone else's shoes. Shame on you.
You would all want the chance to be heard, regardless of rules that are half-baked and illogical.
Yeah, how dare Michigan move up its primary so a multi-ethnic, diverse state can set the tone for the election.
Lets stick with Iowa and New Hampshire, two states that really represent the make-up of America.
I got news for all interested parties, if you end up disenfranchising the voters of Michigan and Florida, we will leave the party.
This is much different than if my candidate doesn't win, I am leaving the party.
Why.
Because my party thinks the best way to handle the situation is just count 48 states choices.
That is just fine, as my party will no longer receive votes from these 2 states. We've already been told loud and clear how important we are in the eyes of our "Democratic" Party.
In case anyone missed it, I am livid about this matter.
And this matter does matter.
Take your ire out on your elected representatives because they are the people who stripped you of your right to a say in the primary. They knew the rules and they broke them to gain more influence in the election. Your claim that it is un-American to strip voters of their say but this is merely a red herring. The issue here is whether rules matter not just in an election but anywhere. I realize that for a younger generation of Americans rules are viewed as an inconvenience but they do matter. Every politicians from both parties in Michigan and Florida knew and understood the rules when they opted to move the primary dates ahead and by their actions they stated loud and clear that rules don't matter. if they do matter then the existing situation should stand as is. If the national and state parties can agree on a way to seat delegates that gives neither candidate an advantage I'm all for it but neither state should have any say in the out come of this election. To give these voters anything more than a perfunctory say at this time would be un-American if in fact we are a nation of laws, which are after all only codified rules..
Well it is nice to see people are still for collective punishment.
I believe rules do matter, but the election has already had rules broken for different reasons or excuses. So I don't know what your whole blanket statement on different generations means. What generation are all the majorly corrupt business owners from?
New Hampshire in fact broke the DNC rules by voting early.
Polling stations have been kept open after the ruled time for closing, this is done to allow more people to have the chance to vote.
Senator Obama broke the rules in FL when ads ran for him, yes it was a mistake due to cable, but it was still a rule that was broken.
At least we can count on the consistency of this party's inconsistencies!
Also the ire has gone to the appropriate officials, and just calling a point a red herring does not actually address the point.
What do you have to say about the lack of following your other codified rules?
Ummm... unless you're reading a different story than I am, the only stakeholder in this scenario who has said "absolutely not" to any of the suggestions is Hillary Clinton. She said she "would not accept" a MI caucus (it's her decision now, apparently). I think everyone else is in favor of some kind of a re-do, so that the voters who didn't bother to cast a ballot in an invalid election aren't disenfranchised (which is what would happen if the delegates were simply seated).
The voters didn't break the rules, the superdelegates and other party heavyweights did. And they should be punished (e.g., don't seat them at the convention, and make them pay for the re-vote).
Also, it may be true that Iowa and New Hampshire do not accurately represent the whole US demographically. Perhaps their primaries shouldn't be first. But the decision as to whether that's the case, and if so, how to fix it, cannot be made by one or two states unilaterally. Who suddenly put MI and FL in charge? I'm from ethnically diverse Rhode Island... and we have a higher percentage of registered Democrats than any state in the US. How come we don't get to go first?
These things need to be hammered out at the party level, not by one or two hotheaded state officials.
First I like what you had to say.
Actually Obama has tried to pull a no way onFL having mail in ballots due to fear of voter fraud.
But the problem is he wrote and is trying to pass a bill to have more mail in voting.
contradiction
Hillary is equally as bad with her seat as is. I do agree with the no caucus as I do not believe they are democratic at all and Michigan does not have caucuses and there is a lot more to them then a primary.
I agree with you on why not Rhode Island.
What the situation is with who goes first, is that the DNC is entrenched in their position.
Thus Michigan tried to force the issue as a way to get some sort of dialogue started.
Thank you, Katherine Harris.
As a citizen of Michigan I commend you for not wishing to seat the delegates from my state or FLorida.
Any results from Michigan were colored by the fact that Obama, Richardson, Biden, etc were kept off the ballot.
No doubt, but don't you now want a chance to actually have a real vote?
Would it make a difference?
These days my general attitude is to vote for the person who causes me less aggravation.
At this point that would be Obama.
I only hope he tries to keep his nose clean and answer any of the Clinton's accusations in a calm and reasoned manner as he has been doing.
I say let Michigan caucus & seat their delegates. But leave Florida out of it as punishment for the incompetent way they conducted the 2000 election & cost Al Gore the presidency. We can't trust these people with any kind of "do-over" They couldn't handle a regulation primary but we'll let them vote by mail??
And yea, I'm a huge Obama supporter
Gee, why am I not surprised that you are a "huge Obama supporter". That explains the total dismissiveness of fairness, the policy of EXCLUSION, and the complete misstatement of facts. Just for the record, it was all FOBs (friends of Bush), such as Katherine Harris and Baby Bro', who cost Al Gore the election in 2000. It was those disgusting, process-flouting REPUGS who stole the election from Gore. It was also all the RED STATES that went totally for shrub. They had a little something to do with it. And all the Nader voters. It was not us long-suffering Democrats in Florida who went to the polls and, in my case, enthusiastically cast our votes for Al Gore. I've wanted Al Gore to be president since 1988. I can assure you that this Floridian did everything humanly possible to help ensure a Gore win in 2000. So it is really fair (NOT) of you to blame Democratic voters who were disenfranchised in 2000 by a Repug machine for costing Gore the presidency. But then, I forgot, you are a huge Obama supporter. You just love spinning things. That's all you Obama-ites--or most of you, not all--do: spin, slogan, throw fairness and democratic process out the window.
I fear for our country if Obama becomes president, I truly do. Because his "followers" are truly cult-like and don't care one wit about fairness or facts or democracy. Wow. Chilling.
And you, Clintonites, want to alter the rules after the fact that your candidate is going to lose in popular votes and delegate count. Also, by my private tally, Obama has won in states that have a total electoral college count of 1168 to Clinton's 866. If you're from Pennsylvania, vote for a Governor who knows how to count and use real numbers to present an argument. Obama will win the general election in every state that Clinton won and in several others where she has no chance.
Senator Obama is too far ahead for Hillary, the telephone receptionist, to catch. No political maneuvering to twist the delegate count or divisive comments from the Clinton camp will corrupt the nominating process.
The will of the people will not be disenfranchised. Obama for President.
Funny, I always thought that as Democrats we believed in obeying the rules. So if these two states broke the rules and we now allow them to revote and or caucus as well as seat superdelegates then we are in fact saying, ‘That’s ok that you didn’t want to follow our silly rules, we still love you.”
When they broke the rules they removed themselves from the primary.
None of us are surprised you are a Hillary supporter. Hate and Lies is all you have.
I completely agree with Dylan on this. It is fine if they really want to do a re-vote but superdelegates should definetly not be seated from those states.
Interesting position you're taking, considering that Florida's vote-counting problems in the 2000 Presidential election only mattered because its electoral votes were CRUCIAL TO THE OUTCOME . Think Obama can win w/o Florida and Michigan???
BTW, do a little math: In the 2000 election, the margin of victory in Florida was something less than 600 votes out of six million votes cast. That makes the margin of victory something like one in ten thousand, or .0001. Put another way, a vote count that was only 99.99 % accurate would have been insufficient. Show me a state anywhere that can count its votes that accurately.
And yeah, I'll be perfectly willing to vote for Obama in the general election so long as he doesn't demonstrate an attitude as asinine as yours.
Well - a. The DNC has stated time and again that, Michigan and Florida delegates will NOT be seated - you only have to take them by their word; and b. All primaries must have been reported to and, approved by the DNC until June 1st '08 latest, to even be CONSIDERED valid. What about just sitting it out, Obama-campaign? Remember: "You play after the rules, or you don't play at all!" FLA, MI and Hillary all broke DNC's perfectly clear rules. Why they now should be REWARDED for this just doesn't fit me.
Not that I'm a huge Hillary fan, mind you, but exactly HOW did she "break the DNC's perfectly clear rules"? Obama supporters keep on saying this, and it keeps on NOT being true! She didn't campaign in Florida. And as for leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan, there is absolutely no rule, DNC or otherwise, saying she should take it off.
Man. I'm just so incredulous at the level of venom and ridiculousness of Obama supporters. The pup (not you, Montanamoter, I'm now referring to someone else) whose comment I just read before reading yours said that "we should leave Florida out", as in, not count the votes of millions of people, all because of what happened in 2000, like it was the fault of the VOTERS?! WHAT? What is WRONG with these Obama supporters, seriously?! I spend EVERY DAY thinking about the 2000 election and how awful it is that Gore didn't win and that the repugs impeded proper election process. I'm a Democrat and a huge Gore supporter. So you want to punish ME by taking my vote away AGAIN in 2008? WHAT? You guys are freakin' me out, you realize that, don't you? You are supposed to be Democrats.
FROM THE FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY "The state-run Presidential Preference Primary date is set by the Florida Legislature. In the 2007 legislative session, the Republican Speaker of the House made it a priority to move up the Primary to January, in violation of both Democratic and Republican National Committee Rules. The Legislature passed the bill, which also included the new requirement that all Florida elections have a paper trail starting in 2008. Governor Charlie Crist signed the bill into law in May."
>>> ...such a new plan will only be produced if it includes the willing participation of both candidates.
Here's a fly in the ointment for you, what about Mike Gravel? He's still in the race. If you give him a seat at that table, do you give him the right to nix the plan? Legally speaking, he's as much a player as Obama/Clinton. If you don't, does he have enough of a legal foot to stand on to hold the process up in court somehow?
What about all the other democratic candidates who were all signators to the original rules? Did some of them drop out because they knew FL/MI (states they might have felt they would have won in a big way) wouldn't be part of the mix? Could any of them hold the thing up in court? How many other campaign strategies might have been developed with FL/MI out of the race?
What about the republicans? This thing affected them too. McCain, who has been splitting the independents with Obama all along, might have gotten an boost from independent Obama supporters who flocked to McCain because that's where their vote had some value. What would Mitt Romney have to say about this?He lost Florida by 5 points where >10% of the voters are independents. Might he have won if the independent Obama supporters gone to Obama? What about Rudy?
What about those independent voters? Do they have a right to vote in the democratic primary? Maybe Obama should insist on it. After all, if you don't include them, they can blow the "disenfranchised" whistle. But if they are allowed to participate, and some of them had already voted in the republican primary, do they get to vote again? What does that do to "one man, one vote"?
What a mess.
To sort out what's right and wrong, fire Howard Dean and put in his place any grade school teacher who watches over kids in a playground and enforces common sense morality when it comes to playing by the rules. If they let FL/MI go from being punished to having the most influential impact on the election, what will happen in 4 years? Every state will be enboldened to arbitrarily switch their allotted election dates. Again, the grade school teacher would forsee this too and enforce the rules as they stand, all crying that results notwithstanding.
Good points. And I had a laugh at your grade school analogy, it's too true. Maybe they will just have to live with their QQing.
Though i'm not unsympathetic to the notion that voters from both states want to participate, and should have been able to. Still, I'd like to know: What has changed since the decision was taken -- many months ago, now -- not to seat their delegates?
Perhaps it was a bad decision; if so, let's do it better next time. But this is precisely one of the greatest problems the Democrats have: no spine for making a decision and sticking to it. This isn't life and death, no one is going to die if we all agree to abide by the rules that were agreed upon by the party months and months ago. Clinton's people agreed; Obama's people agreed; party leaders agreed. They took a decision, now it's time to stick to it. Just stick to it. End of story. The debate goes away. This endless agonizing over rules that were agreed to is infuriating.
"AuntSally", you ask "What has changed since the decision was taken many months ago not to seat their delegates?" The answer is: nothing. It was a boneheaded, over-the-top, totally unfair, possibly illegal, circular-f
And our delegates should be seated. PERIOD.
Florida and Michigan broke the rules. They have no ground to stand on and the two state parties are to blame, not the DNC. If the DNC accepts a plan which forces a revote, then folks may be okay with that. However, the Florida and Michigan voters have been disenfranchised by their state parties, legislatures and governors and are entitled to nothing.
Nope.
Unanimous voting in the legislature in clear violation of what the DNC had ordered. The DNC explicitly said that if the primary was moved up, they would strip Florida of their votes.
Florida gambled it all and lost. Now they're crying foul. Too bad.
Period.
I went to the Florida Democratic Party website before they have placed on their site a myriad of newspaper articles going back to what transpired with changing the primary dates ... they decided to change it the florida democratic party wanted to stick to their guns irregardless of what the DNC said .... My husband and I were born and raised in Florida we recognized that our votes did not count ... nor should they the party knew damned well what it was doing it was not something brought about by the Republican legislature ... I implore the DNC not to seat the delegates and certainly not to go for Nelson's ridiculous mail in primary ... since it would favor those with the capital to stay in one place many of the poor in Florida change their address and it gets even more pernicious considering the 2000 election and the scrub lists and on and on
I am a Florida voter and I did vote in the primary even though I knew, as did everyone else here, that that my presidential primary vote would not count. I really went to vote on some state and local ballot issues and pulled the trigger for my presidential choice while I was at it. Why not.
I want my vote to count, BUT, not like this. I don't want to win by cheating and I don't want to lose by being cheated on. Either way, it degrades our democratic process.
Those who are clamoring to have the results of this non-binding primary count as-is know that it is cheating. I'm talking about everyone from the governor of Florida (who used to tbe the attorney general) to our state senators to Clinton campaign officials. These people are almost all lawyers and THEY KNOW IT'S CHEATING.
Everyone I know, to a person, says, "Hell yeah, let's just vote again. No problem." If these votes or delegates are counted without a revote, that will suck for everyone and you can bet McCain would love to say he's running against an undemocrat
Listen, this is the state of hanging chads and Katherine Harris. We don't need another stain!
And why exactly would counting the votes of a record number of voters in an election in which all names were on the ballot and no one campaigned here (thus it was a fair playing field) be "cheating", if the rules committee decides to overturn Dean's idiotic and draconian withdrawal of ALL of Florida's delegates and allow it? Seems to me that disenfranchising millions of voters would be "cheating" our treasured Democratic process.
You're incorrect about "not campaignin
You are so misguided. To suggest that Florida and Michigan be denied their superdelegates is to make their states second class citizens in the Democratic Party. If Obama impedes a redo of the primaries, and/or impedes the seating of Florida and Michigan superdelegates the Democratic Party will implode in November. If Obama is given the nomination based on total votes minus the full contingent of Florida and Michigan delegates, it will be seen by many Clinton supporters that their candidate was denied the nomination by unfair maneuvering by the Obama campaign. Many Clinton supporters are already embittered to the point they will not vote for Obama in November. This kind of scorched earth policy will just increase those numbers.
Blow it out of your rear. You losers are so desperate to win that you will do or say anything no matter how false, despicable or amoral. You are willing to lose the white house and further destroy the country just to keep a black man from sitting at a desk in the oval office? Are you all that souless?
By "you losers", do you mean those who disagree with you and believe that the votes of millions of voters should count? Because, if that is who you mean, then as one of those "losers", allow me to answer your question? My wanting to count the votes of millions has nothing to do with, quote "keeping a black man from sitting at a desk in the oval office". In fact, my hero in life is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I wish he could come back to life and be our president.
why? Do you actually think we would be going through this if Obama had of won Michigan and Florida? This is NOT fair and I am sick and tired of people like being total hypocrits with this matter. You know their are soooo many young people partisipating in this election and the message people like you are teaching them is the same lesson that keeps our country at the bottom of the list in the world. People around the world are looking at us and laughing and critizing us because we are showing them that we are frauds. We don't practice what we preach in the way of democracy. Are the people in other countries are saying that America is a hypocrit. And their hate and anger for us grows deeper. Are you speaking for those, "many Clinton supporters?" Clinton supporters have really shown their true colors when it comes to this election..
Wow...so you really want to disenfranchise millions of voters, then? And you feel that this would improve America's image in the eyes of the world? Interesting. I'm becoming very fascinating with how Obama supporters justify/spin their stances on things. Anything that benefits Obama, apparently, is good, no matter how much it may disenfranchise millions of voters, for instance. Fascinating, simply fascinating. In a scary way, but fascinating, nonetheless.
Right on, myskylark!!! Dean's policy is indeed a "scorched earth" one, great metaphor there, so apt! He has singlehandedly taken a fired-up, unified, totally enthused base of Florida Democrats and totally alienated and disenfranchised us. He has also caused the entire Democratic party to fracture and it is now in serious danger of imploding, as you accurately assessed.
To me, this isn't about if one supports Clinton or Obama (personally, I wanted GORE, but he isn't running, and both Clinton and Obama were my very last choices from among the field, as I would have preferred Edwards or Biden, but anyway...)
I fear for my party, I fear for the integrity of the process, I mean...NOT GOOD, Dean!
I say: seat the delegates of Florida and Michigan. I think the already-held primaries were valid, but if a "re-do" is what the party requires, so be it. But some kinda way, our votes should count.
Florida and Michigan MADE THEMSELVES second class citizens by violating DNC rules that they had previously agreed on. They took a calculated risk that *maybe* the DNC wouldn't strip their delegates, and *maybe* the candidates would still choose to campaign in their states if they did lose their delegates. These states BROKE THE RULES and now they want everybody to feel sorry for them. I, for one, am playing the world's smallest violin for those wannabe-cheaters.
I, for one, don't give a d*mn about your violin or what size it is, or what you choose to play or not play on it. All I and millions of innocent voters in Florida and Michigan ask for is that our votes count towards delegates as they should. No one wants you to feel sorry for us. What we want is our DELEGATES. What we DEMAND is our delegates. And if we don't get them, it isn't going to be pretty. And I am talking both about the convention AND the general election. Because I cannot bring myself to vote for a candidate who didn't want my vote to count. PERIOD. I also certainly will not be voting for a repug, and I CERTAINLY won't vote for Ralph Nader!!! So, I and millions of FL and MI voters will no doubt sit out. So you can save that small violin of yours for our country, when it is stuck with 4 more years of repug ruination.
Florida and Michigan broke the rules. End of story.
Ok, maybe the voters of Florida and some of the voters of Michigan didn't choose for their state to break the rules, but everyone who VOTED did so knowing their vote didn't count nationally.
Ok, maybe some of those voters were uninformed and barely knew the day the vote was - but still.
There needs to be consequences. Stripping the Super Delegates seems one such option.
I think, personally, that both states should either be forced to hold caucuses (smaller, cheaper, overall quicker.) I also think that both states should see their Pledged Delegates counts reduced as a penalty.
The voters can still have their say, but the states should not be allowed to play kingmaker after breaking the rules.
In response to "everyone who VOTED did so knowing their vote didn't count nationally
The rest of the country and Democrats in general think Howard Dean did the right thing.
Labeling Dean's actions, as head of the DNC, as "unfair, draconian, bizarre" etc., shows that you don't understand the concept of having a national committee in the first place, and maybe you also don't understand the concept of a political party.
Educate yourself on these things, and maybe you will start making some sense.
Exactly! I considered my (non clinton, non obama) primary vote very carefully before went to the polls just in case we ended up in a situation--well like the one we're in now.
Play by the rules. Divide the Fla and Mich delegates 50-50 for Obama and Clinton and seat them. The superdelegates, in both state, can stay home for being incompetent. Peace
How on EARTH is "dividing the delegates 50/50" fair or "playing by the rules'?!!!!!!! Last time I checked, it was one citizen, one vote. Dividing the delegates in half totally disregards the actual votes cast, in a possibly even WORSE way than not seating the delegates at all, if that is even possible! The whole point of delegates is to REPRESENT the will of the voters. Arbitrarily splitting them 50/50 TOTALLY disregards this. It is the worst, most unfair, undemocratic, BIZARRE idea yet, and is only being floated by Obama supporters, far as I can discern.
I'm sorry but there is NO rule that says one should split anything 50/50!!!! There is whoever rules that allow the states to go to the rules committee to have there original votes reinstated. Let 'em do that and dare the DNC to reject their appeal. Those are THE RULES!
Yeah! I'm a fan of LewisR as of two seconds from now when I click on the thaaang that makes it official!
Imhotep,
Disingenuous much?
-MS
So Obama is to steal the votes.....
Um, yeah, here's the thing: you obviously don't know what you are talking about. And, frankly, I'm blue in the face from arguing about the whole FL/MI delegate situation for lo these many months with anyone and everyone who makes misinformed and/or idiotic statements about same. The bottom line is: millions upon millions of innocent voters do NOT deserve to be "punished" for something they had nothing to do with, namely the violation of an arbitrary, unfair and arcane rule about the date of the primaries. BOTH the FL and the MI delegations should be seated, as BOTH were free and fair elections. A "pardon" should be issued by the rules committee and the primary system should be changed so that something like this never occurs again. We need a fair, rotating system of regional primaries. But meanwhile, the situation today with THIS primary cycle is what it is and millions of voters shouldn't have their voices silenced due to something that wasn't their fault. Howard Dean's draconian punishment: 1.) is WAY over-the-top and extreme; and 2.) is directed at the wrong people. Both the regular delegates and the super-delegates should be included in the process just as they normally would be, and anyone who doesn't like it should move to a country that doesn't treasure the right of every citizen to vote and have it counted. Here in America, we do treasure that right.
Unless you are a dues paying card carrying member of the Democratic Party you really have nothing to say about their internal process of nomination. The primaries are misrepresented as public events subject to constitutional guarantees of voting rights. The parties have no constitutional standing and it's probably a misallocation of public funds to have their private affairs conducted by government officials. Have you noticed there are no government run primaries for any other parties?
The DNC made its ruling and the candidates agreed to abide by it. Many voters accepted the ruling and did not participate. Seating the delegations would be tantamount to disenfranchising people who followed the rules. No one will be disenfranchised if the delegations are not seated since they will still be able to vote in all the elections for actual public office as guaranteed by the Constitution.
I AM a registered, lifelong member of the Democratic party, thank you very much. I am also an American citizen. As for your statement that "there are no government run primaries for any other parties", it is untrue: here in Florida, for example, the primary election is run by the state, which, last time I looked, is a government. As for your comment that "many voters accepted the ruling" of the DNC to yank our votes away, obviously you have not talked to any actual voters in the state of Florida. WE WANT OUR VOTES TO COUNT.
I find it surreal that anyone doesn't get how unjust and bizarre it is to take away the votes of millions of people because a primary date was moved up SEVEN DAYS ahead of when the rules stated it should be. Should there have been consequences for the rule violation? Yes, Dean had no choice. But should there have been THAT particular consequence? Hell no, anyone with even one functioning brain cell should be able to see that, surely! COUNT OUR VOTES!!!!!
I question your judgment if you call a ballot with one major candidate and "uncommitted" to be a free and fair tool.
Also, we treasure the right of every citizen to vote and have it counted? Where were you in 2000? We are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic. We do not decide national issues on a popular vote.
Get off your high horse and stop railing.
X405pastmidnight, you ask: "Also, we treasure the right of every citizen to vote and have it counted? Where were you in 2000?"
Answer: I was right here in the state of Florida, watching helplessly and in horror as Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and the entire repug machine impeded a fair election and basically handed the election to shrub, while the candidate I love and believe would have been amazing for my country (as opposed to ruining my country, as seven years of shrub has done), was left twisting in the winds of "change" (see, change is not always a good thing).
It is precisely because I remember 2000 EVERY SINGLE MOMENT OF EVERY SINGLE DAY that I will never allow my vote to be taken away again, especially not by my own party and especially not by the likes of one Howard Dean, idiot extraordinaire! So, no, I will NOT stop railing, not until the votes of the 1.7 million Democrats who turned out to cast ballots in the primary are COUNTED towards DELEGATES. And I would think that anyone else who remembers 2000, as you claim to, and who is a Democrat, especially, would be right there railing with me.
P.S. AND, in response to this little ditty: "I question your judgment if you call a ballot with one major candidate and "uncommitted" to be a free and fair tool.", I say:
Why wasn't it a free and fair election? Obama CHOSE to remove himself from the ballot. If you aren't on a ballot, then no one can vote for you. Surely he figured that out...righ
So, yep, I think the Michigan election was free and fair. That said, I think it would be fine if there were a "re-do" that includes Obama on the ballot.
To even suggest that Michigan was a "free and fair election" is completely asinine. Hillary beat out "uncommitted" in Michigan by a whopping 55% to 40% despite being the only viable candidate on the ballot. If you truly treasured the right of every citizen to vote and have it counted, you would be arguing for a revote, not to seat the delegates according to the prior results. And yet, you go even further and suggest that the superdelegates from Michigan and Florida must be seated as well. For someone that is all up in arms about the unfair primary system favoring certain states, you certainly have a strange affinity for the current role superdelegates in this process. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't give a rat's ass about the superdelegates "right to vote" as superdelegates within the current construct. There is no such constitutional "right" - and quite frankly, I don't think the voters need a babysitter in the form of superdelegates - there is only a right created by the DNC, which is the same entity that stripped the Florida and Michigan superdelegates of that right. But the system is what it is right now and I will live with it. That doesn't mean, however, that there should be no consequences for an intentional and purposeful violation of the rules or that we should change the rules in the middle of the game for political expediency.
Michigan and Florida both agreed to the rules and the order of primaries. Then, after agreeing, they made the calculated decision to jump ahead because they wanted to have a bigger impact in the process. They were informed at that time that they would be stripped of delegates if they went ahead with their early primaries. They did it anyway. Now, I don't begrudge them the desire to have a bigger role (hell, I live in Michigan) but Michigan and Florida, not the DNC (or Howard Dean), rolled the dice that the DNC would roll over and seat them at the convention anyway. I'm sure they assumed that in the end, the primary would be over long before the convention and the DNC would then make the decision to seat them because it would make no difference at that point and they would have established a precedent for having an earlier primary in the process. That turned out not to be the case.
Whether the primary process is ridiculous and unfair in favoring states like Iowa and New Hampshire in the process is without doubt and it should be changed. However, that fact has nothing to do with whether Michigan and Florida made the intentional decision to disregard the rules to which they agreed.
Revote or sit at home. That is the choice Florida and Michigan legislators knowingly made when they rolled the dice and broke the rules.
"To even suggest that Michigan was a "free and fair election" is completely asinine. Hillary beat out "uncommitted" in Michigan by a whopping 55% to 40% despite being the only viable candidate on the ballot. If you truly treasured the right of every citizen to vote and have it counted, you would be arguing for a revote, not to seat the delegates according to the prior results."
Gogreen, first of all, despite the fact that you are vehemently disagreeing with me, I must first say that I LOVE your moniker. Okay, on to business: I am not opposed to a revote, especially in Michigan where Obama's name was not on the ballot, albiet that by his own stupid choice. In the interest of fairness to the two remaining candidates, I say, go for a revote in Michigan if that is the will of the party. I'd even be willing to go along with one here in Florida, even though we clearly had a free and fair election with record turnout. But if a mail-in re-vote in FL is the only way my party will count our votes, so be it. I'm open to that. But there is a difference to "open to it" and "arguing for it", as you say I should be doing. I see no reason to argue for a new election in Florida, since we held a perfectly valid one and the only thing in question is the date that it was held on. I think a "pardon" for the date rule violation in the case of Florida makes more sense than a re-vote. That said, if a re-vote is decided upon, then so be it. Let me at that ballot, baby!
"Michigan and Florida both agreed to the rules and the order of primaries. Then, after agreeing, they made the calculated decision to jump ahead because they wanted to have a bigger impact in the process."
True, and neither one of the two states should have done that, imho. Yes, that WAS a violation of a rule, arcane, arbitrary and unfair as that rule may be (and is!), it is still a rule. But the punishment does NOT fit the crime and, more importantly, is misdirected at the wrong people. At innocent people. Millions of us, do you see that? Millions of voters! In the case of Florida, does anyone remember 2000 except us? We have no desire to relive it! Just for ONCE, we'd like our votes to count!
The violation of the rule was something that Dean/the DNC couldn't just ignore, nor should he have. But stripping away ALL of the delegates? I'm not feeling that at all. Again, it punishes the wrong people and is extremely unfair and undemocratic.
I'm not against a re-vote...
Either way, my vote had better be counted towards some delegate action. Otherwise, much as it truly, sincerely pains me deeply to say this, I won't vote in the general. Not for Obama. I would vote for Hillary because she has come out and said our votes should count, even though her motives for saying that certainly may not be pure of heart, they could be totally mercenary, I don't care, because she is on the side of truth, justice and the American way, far as I'm concerned. She is right: our votes SHOULD count. So, I would vote for her in the general, mainly because we have GOT to take back the White House, and also I do feel that she happens to be highly qualified and she'd be a great president, in all likelihood. She's no Al Gore, but she'll do in a pinch. But Obama? Much as I feel he is a sloganeering politician and I don't like him anyway with all his "present" votes and lack of backbone, I would totally have lined up behind him as our Democratic nominee...
Peace out.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
