RESOLVING the FLORIDA ELECTION
The following is reasonable way to resolve the seating of the Florida delegation that respects the State's voters, both Democratic candidates, and the fact that the Florida Legislature ignored the rules of both the Republican and Democratic Parties and moved the date of their primary, with full warning of resulting consequences:
1) The State of Florida's 210 Democratic delegates will be reduced by 50 percent, and 105 delegates will be seated at the Democratic Convention. (Similar to what the Republican Party has decided as a consequence of changing their primary date.)
2) The 105 delegates will be apportioned based on the Florida primary results, imperfect as it was, with Clinton receiving 50 percent or 52.5 delegates; Obama 33 percent or 34.5 delegates, and Edwards 14 percent or 14.5 delegates.
The above resolution will remove this topic as a continuing contentious issue, prevent a costly re-vote, however administered, yet seat the Florida delegation in a fair manner.
Now, let's move on to resolve Michigan.
Gregory Dunkling
Stowe, VT
My Conversation with Florida's Democratic Party Chair, Karen Thurman
Among the topics discussed was the role of Florida's Republican-controlled legislature in this latest Sunshine State election controversy.
The full conversation airs tonight on PBS.
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
She seemed to approve of the change at the time:
''That is to say once and for all, to settle this, we will be voting on Jan. 29 with our candidates on the ballot,'' Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman said Sunday. ``At the end of the day, we came down on the side of having a fair and open election.''
Thurman said a majority of the more than 200 party leaders from across the state supported the decision, but a vocal minority of activists said it would handicap the party at a time when it should be capitalizing on the Republican administration's dwindling popularity.
''It's a Thelma and Louise strategy of backing up the car while we're driving over a cliff,'' said DNC member Allan Katz, a Tallahassee attorney involved in the negotiations., Another DNC member who lives in Tallahasssee, Jon Ausman, went so far to compare Thurman's negotiating tactics over the past month to ``George Bush in his handling of Iraq.''
http://www.fladems.com/content/w/florida_democrats_launch_drive_to_defend_early_primary_date
Whoops,
sorry grijambri, I attributed the nonsensical comment by WASanford to you.
My apology.
greejambri said:
"The Florida primary could not have been more fair. No democrat campaigned in Florida "
I hand it to you, it is rare for people to make an argument for their point of view that so explicitly points out the very absurdity of their own position.
My proposed solution for Florida:
Let the delegates be seated, give them 0.1 vote per delegate, and make them wear orange jumpsuits.
LOL! What is the meaning of the orange jumpsuits? Because they are the orange growers, or is it the uniform of death row inmates?
Since the Florida rethuglicans moved the date over the objections of the democrats, the Florida delegation should be seated. While no one campaigned in the state (Obama ran TV ads), all the candidates were on the ballot. Their results should count.
Your plan gives an advantage to the only candidate with strong name recognition.
Seat the delegates!
Let Hillary have them. Obama wins anyway so why waste money on a re-do?
It's great to see you, Tavis. Been a fan ever since BET (and my god is that network suffering without it's news hour, and your show). I'll watch tonight. I try to catch your PBS show as much as possible.
Was never much of a Tavis Smiley fan...would catch the show periodically...However his behavior toward Obama re: Tavis' Smiley's conference? totally turned me off on the man. Trying to get a piece of the Obama pie and sell books. I saw this interview...wonder if Tavis realizes when he talks about Obama and Clinton, he always mentions Clinton first and Obama last...while it hardly makes a real difference (although Hillary didn't like being asked all those questions FIRST) it does reflect Mr. Smiley's mindset. And that is what politics is all about. Nobody will ever make me believe that Mr. Smiley would not have accepted Bill Clinton in lieu of Hillary at Mr. Smiley's conference. Not given his patent bias in their favor. But if he wants to try to sell that pair of shoes then we will let him. He is one of a few black men who seem to have been having hissy fits at Obama's candidacy. I personally have no use for the man. A very smart poltical strategist told me, If I show up in your office unannounced and you are misbehaving...I suspect you are probably always misbehaving. Mr. Smiley genuflects when the Clinton name is mentioned, so I suspect that position is probably the usual for Mr. Smiley when it comes to the Clintons
Maybe he puts their names in alphabetical order. . .
Or "ladies first."
This sorry woman must be an Obama supporter.She is killing us that voted. in FLA>..that idiot on MSNBC said it was UNFAIR to count our votes here because NEITHER candidate got to campaign...oh my GOD...has he never heard of TV, newspapers and magazines..all we see here are speeches and articles in the media...we know PLENTY, and we have already voted...if that dumba_ _ Howard Dean had any B___, he would step in and seat these delegates...sounds like the rules should have been changed for Fla as soon as ALL the candidates names appeared on the ballot...what an idiot he is..if HILLARY gets cheated in FLA..as it looks like that is what the DNC wants to DO..they can STIICK their candidate and I , a lifelong DEMOCRAT will vote for McCAIN..at least then, Hillary might have a chance in 2012/ It is clear he wants to disenfranchise the Florida Democrats BECAUSE HILLARY won BIG here...what a travesty..the MAN who wants so badly to be
president that he would do that to the Fla. voters....work behind the scenes to NOT get a fair vote...hey, wait a minute, hasn't it happened BEFORE?????Gee, he must be following the "footsteps" of our wonderful "COOMANDER IN CHIEF, the Cheater himself, George BUSH...now, if Obama just has a brother he could name as governor of Fla.,.....
You don't understand. Only people who have attended Obama rallies in person are qualified to vote in the primaries and caucuses because they have been inspired and/or fainted.
good one!
There is something I don't understand.
Did the republican party in Florida FORCE the democrats to have the primary early and the democrats allow themselves to be forced into this and had no say so? EVEN Though the National DNC said there are rules and you have to follow the rules?
OR did the democratic party decide to do it on their own and the state allowed it?
And if they did it on their own KNOWING FULL WELL that they were breaking the rules, then why are they whining about it now?
So what exactly happened that the Democratic party in Florida decided on an early primary?
In answer to your questions YES. In Florida the state runs the primary not the party. The republicans knew full well what they were doing and the democrats, who are in the minority in both state houses, could do nothing about it.
That is not true. 1) Democratic state Senator Ring stated he supported this change to make Florida relevent. Even after they were reminded they could be stripped he stated he would rather have the earlier vote than have the delegates seated.
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2008/01/ring_views_florida_as_more_relevant_than_ever.html
The bill that changed the date was passed through a throughly bipartisan effort - 37-2 in the State Senate and 118-0 in the State House.
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=35049
And on Jun 11, 2007 - the Florida Democratic Party leadership unanimously accepted the Jan 29th date. There was no disagreement - they all supported this.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/chrnothp08/fdp061107pr.html
Congratulations on a factual comment. Thanks.
The bill to change the primary date also contained a requirement for paper ballots, did it not? And this was something the Democrats had to support.
thanks for some real factual info. we need much more of this here, instead of the constant whining, blame somebody else, hysterical rants there is so much of.
Thatcher,
Thank you for this. It looks like the voters in Florida have more to blame than just their state party and the DNC since their legislatures voted on the primary date. Where did the idea that this date was forced on them by the Republicans come from?
So this was a ploy by the Thug party knowing the democratic national committee would disallow the delegates?
And to what end?
Was the Thug party THAT prescient?
Or should Florida just be written off forever since they don't seem to be able to do anything right with regards to elections. Has Florida become the "special" kid in the family no one should talk about?
Florida hasn't had a legitimate presidential election since 2000. Florida is filled with Rethug crooks and cheaters who will do anything to screw up the national election. Florida is not worthy of even being allowed to vote for anything. Florida is the cesspool of national elections--voting machines floating in Biscayne Bay, voting machines stolen by Cuban Republicans who hate Clinton and Janet Reno and still can't get over it.
The Rethugs screwed the Democratic Party--just like they've screwed YOU, ME, Our COUNTRY and our ECONOMY ever since Reagan proclaimed government to be bad. The Rethugs love deregulation and that's exactly what has us in this mess with regard to the economy AND voting. Why anyone would want to live in such a state is beyond me.
The US Constitution gives no authority to political parities to set election dates. It does however give authority to state legislatures to set election dates.
It's beyond outrageous for the political parties to disfranchise voters because their legislatures carried out their duties as outlined in the constitution.
I would remind that when the Constitution was written even the notion of a primary was not even a glimmer in the most perspicacous of the Founding Fathers. Primaries were a brain child of the national parties in the 1960s. Like it or not, national parties can and should determine the policies that affect the nation and state parties should determine the policies that affect individual states. The GOP in Florida lost half their delegates as a result of moving the primary forward. I don't hear much fuss on that side of the aisle about this. Florida Democrats should simply quit their whining and propose a reasonable solution such as splitting the delegates between two the two candidates. They might then consider taking out any ire they may have on state Republicans for creating this mess and secondarily in State Democrats for not doing more to try and prevent it.
New Hampshire has held a presidential primary since 1916, but it did not begin to assume its current importance until 1952 after New Hampshire simplified its ballot access laws in 1949 seeking to boost voter turnout, when Dwight Eisenhower demonstrated his broad voter appeal by defeating Robert A. Taft, "Mr. Republican," who had been favored for the nomination, and Estes Kefauver defeated incumbent President Harry S. Truman, leading Truman to abandon his campaign for a third term.
cut and pasted from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary
If you want the political parties to set election dates instead of the state legislature change the Constitution, don't ignore it.
Aren't the states paying for the primaries? If so, why can't they have them anytime they want regardless of the party rules? The Democratic Party has designed a lousy system but, by golly, they're going to stick to it like glue. Losing this election in November might be what it takes to get them smart for a change. It would be worth it. Rewarding bad behavior is not a good idea.
You only have the constitutional right to vote for your representation in the Electoral College in November. Constitutionally, you do not elect your choice for president, but the electors to vote for the choice of the winning side.
Parties, however, have set the precedence to set up the rules to decide the nominees you get to choose from in the General. You do not have the constitutional right in this process, however over the years the Parties have become more driven by transparency giving the privilege to the people to make the choices.
Is this the same legislature that brought us Terry Schiavo? I guess Florida really likes to elect idiots.
No the Florida legislature was not guilty of the Terry Schiavo fiasco, that was courtesy of our republican majority congress in Washington.
Obama voted to intervene in order to sustain Terry Schiavo's life support. It was a complete misuse of the House to inject themselves into the lives of those families. Another bone-headed mistake, an example of excellent judgment.
Social--you have a source on that or ar you just making shit up?
I hate to say it, but I think the Republicans had the right idea. As a consequence they cut the number of delegates in MI and FL in half and let the candidates campaign. I wish the DNC had done that since it would have seated the delegates, while at the same time punishing the state parties for the early dates. That way the states would have had a degree of influence, but not as much as they could have. Now we have a mess with no fair way to solve the issue. Those of you who think it was fair are ignoring that their were rules. Obama has shown that his numbers increase when he opens offices, volunteers are movilited and they make phone calls and knock on doors. Without that he is so much less known than Hillary, and was especially so in January.. That didn't happen in FL or MI so these just weren't fair elections. When you add that voters were told their votes wouldn't count, it becomes even more clear that now counting them isn't fair either. It's a mess and without a new primary or caucus you just have to go with the rules that were set before the voting started.
The Florida primary could not have been more fair. No democrat campaigned in Florida and all of the candidates were on the ballot. It may cost the Obama camp part of it's lead, but the delegates from Florida need to be seated and allowed to vote. At least that is, if you don't want Florida going for Ralph Nader in the general election.
It wasn't fair because people stayed home and did not vote because they knew the delegates would not be seated. THAT"S why it's not fair. Plus, Clinton did several "fundraisers" before the "primary" and had more exposure in the state than the other candidates. As for blaming the Republicans, there was a Democratic lawmaker in FLA who initially came up with the grand idea of moving the primary up contrary to party regulations. Once that ball got rolling, the Republicans were happy to assist the Dems in breaking their own party's rules.
greejambri--EXACTLY.
No! The Republicans were wrong too. They were only half as wrong as the Democrats.
Posted March 17, 2008 | 09:13 PM (EST)