Should the delegates from Florida and Michigan be seated?

[XemaSab]

:shrug:

And for what it's worth, these are the current numbers:

Florida: Clinton 50, Obama 33, and Edwards 13.

Michigan: Clinton 55, Uncommitted 40, Kucinich 4.

[musicblind]

1. Wow I am surprised people are not

voting for the revote! So that we can at least keep these states votes from being disenfranchised in a fair and sound manner. It is very important that they get to vote, and the only way it will be excepted is in a revote... so we should have one!

[JTFrog]

3. Can my state have a vote please. We didn't break any rules.

Oh we can't? Not surprised. I guess those folks in Florida and Michigan are special. They should be able to break the rules and still get a say even tho some states won't be looked at at all.

Glad we aren't disenfranchising any voters with this fair and sound manner.

[Demeter]

10. Which State Has No Primary or Caucus?

[JTFrog]

13. Voting started in January. Our primary is May 6th. Long after the

candidates have established momentum and secured their sought after delegates from the "important states".

In 2006 I felt pretty irrelevant too. They didn't even bother putting a candidate up against Dick Lugar. Why? Because we were one of those red states that doesn't have any chance to turn blue. So what happened? The dems had widespread sweeps all over the state where they did run candidates. But I'm sure that things are totally different in a presidential election year.

Technically, we get to push a button on a touch screen at some point. But more than likely the choice will already have been made by the more "important states".

It's a petty rant I know. But I feel completely left out of the process, like the party could give a damn if we show support or not.

I just don't understand why we can't all vote on the same day or the same month and just do away with this elitist system. It's just another way to create discourse amongst our own, as we are all witnessing right now. In this process someone is going to get or feel disenfranchised. I just don't see it as fair and sound.

[Demeter]

15. I Support a National Primary With Instant Runoff, Myself

Which gives everyone a chance to win, voter and candidate alike.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

40. Naa ntl primary gives people with little money no choice at all

I favor different rounds...

10 rounds of 5 states over the course of 20 week (1 every 14 days) keep the states geographically close so that candidates dont have to break the bank campaigning. And be sure to mix up the order (dont do NY/NJ/MA/CT in round one and CALI/OR/NV/AZ the next..

To top it off you can rotate the order every four years..

So the first week of februray you can have say the midwest round WI/IL/IA/IN/MI the second round could be the New England Round ME/NH/VT/CT/RI round thee the south (TX/NM/AZ/LA/AK ) round four to the NE (NY/PA/NJ/MD/DE)

5. West (CA, OR, WA, AK, HA)
6. and so on...

Imagine how things would change if low budget candidates could focus all their efforts on a smaller geographical area..

[stahbrett]

26. Who decided that May 6th was the election day for your state?

Why not move it up to Super-Duper Tuesday?

[JTFrog]

30. There has been talk

There has been talk for several years of creating a rotating regional primary system, where the Midwestern states might go first one year, the South next, and so on, rotating the order from election to election, to make the process fair. But that idea has failed to materialize, and Republicans and Democrats in Indiana are both tired of waiting.

I would prefer a national primary election day as mentioned above by Demeter.

[stahbrett]

33. I like the idea of rotating regions better than national primary

The regional approach would seem to allow for a lesser-known candidate to have a better chance of connecting with voters, building a ground operation, etc., and then if they do well in the first region, build off of that in the next region.

A national primary day would seem to favor the early frontrunner(s) with the higher name recognition.

I do like instant runoff voting, approval voting, etc.

[XemaSab]

35. The fly in the ointment as I see it is that

this year, for example, if the Southwest went first that would give Hillary the mo', but if it was the southeast the same would be true for Obama, and so forth.

How to prevent that from happening? :shrug:

[musicblind]

37. Your argument doesn't hold much water with me

or many others because it is not rational. First, I am from North Carolina. We vote the same day you do! Our votes still count, we still GET votes. If a re-vote was scheduled in FL or MI that would take place in MAY as well, most likely AFTER the May 6th vote. Therefore, by your logic, FL and MI would get even less of a say than you do. You are merely trying to justify disenfranchising voters in order to support, or hurt another candidate. I am offering a fair concept. A re-vote where both candidates get to campaign. If anything that jeopardizes Hillary's claim to those states because of the trend Obama shows each time he campaigns in a given state. If it were not for Obama/Hillary-hate this would be considered a serious issue by the majority on this forum.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. They made their bed

[musicblind]

39. The voters did not make their bed

elected officials made their bed for them without their say, and you know that is true. No matter how much you try and deny it.

If it were not for the Hillary-hate complex on this board you would probably agree. Though I fully expect you to deny such a thing with something such as "you don't know me", but nothing else to back it up... because no one ever admits to being wrong...

I am offering a very fair option, an option that benefits Obama more than Hillary because it is very important that these people get to vote. My father, who is republican and voting for McCain, is using this as an excuse to bash the Democratic party. He is claiming it as proof that we do not care about all of our voters. He claims the voters should sue. (A ridiculous claim because they would sadly have no legal grounds one way or the other. This is a moral issue, not a legal one.)

[floridablue]

2. I was trying to be one for the first time.

[SKKY]

4. They broke DNC rules, they were both warned ahead of time...

...The Democratic leadership of each state should be taken out back and flogged. It's possible their poor decisions will cause a brokered convention. The only way I'll forgive either of them is if Gore gets the nomination.

[aquarius dawning]

19. In the years preceding the 1960s, Southern blacks were breaking Democratic party rules too

They were warned repeatedly too.

Gore made his bed long ago. If he pulls a nom out ofthis, I'm going to have to rethink everything about American politics and the Democratic party.

Howard Dean should be fired.

[pampango]

5. Will the DNC be able to set any primary rules in 2012, if Hillary/Michigan/Florida

succeed in ignoring this year's rules and getting the delegates seated from those two sanctioned primaries?

There's a lot of talk here about reforming the nominating process for the next election cycle - whether it is a better schedule for primaries, primaries instead of caucuses, the role of superdelegates, etc. If the candidates and states are just going to ignore whatever rules the DNC comes up with, why bother?

[XemaSab]

6. Not to threadjack my own thread

but the last few weeks have made me reconsider the idea of a faster primary season.

I think it's good that we're seeing the top two candidates really battle it out, instead of picking an early winner.

[pampango]

14. I see what you mean. Some may agree with you and other disagree.

I'm not sure about it myself.

The point of my post was that even if Democrats come to a national agreement on issues like this, is there any way to make it happen if the candidates and state parties can change any part of the agreement they want?

[XemaSab]

34. That is the larger point, yeah

and personally, I feel we should make an example of them on the one hand, but I also feel that the almighty Iowa-and-New-Hampshire thing is sorta lame. :shrug:

[cyclezealot]

7. I voted for screw em, we don't need their electoral vote, anyway.

Punish Mich if you choose. The break the rules bull crap is just that. New Hampshire wants to be able to elect the president of the United States all on their own, because they are so wise.
Hell with that. The DNC at first wanted to make Nevada a primary state, rivaling New Hampshire. New Hampshire one upped Nevada, saying we will go first no matter what. New Hampshire moved up its primary schedule , also going against the DNC schedule. The rules are archane and need be challenged.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

41. NH

Does not generally pick the nominee McCain won in 2000, I don't think Clinton won it in 1992. They dont go first to pick the pres they go first to get money from the media descending on their state..

[cyclezealot]

43. Yeah. I am sick of the nation beind captive to their

tourist promotion scheme too. Who but skiers wants to be in NH in January. Does not matter if the eventual nominee chosen In NH wins in August. What gauls me, they eliminate those I say might win elsewhere. The game is rigged for money and media control.

[Demeter]

8. Why Punish Voters For Party Officials' Faults==REVOTE!

I'm hoping for caucuses this summer!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arkansas Granny]

9. No, don't seat them. They knew the rules and they knew the

consequences of breaking them when they made the decision to hold their primaries early.

[cyclezealot]

11. won't you feel a little weird pleading for their

electoral votes come late October. Going to say, screw them then. ?

[Arkansas Granny]

18. I fail to see what their electoral votes have to do with the question

that was asked. These two states knowingly broke the rules that were set by the DNC. The knew that their delegates would be stripped if they held their primaries ahead of the schedule set by the DNC. They scheduled their primaries anyway knowing what the consequences would be.

Frankly, I would support having a national primary day which would allow all voters in all states to be a part of selecting the candidates. The current system leaves too much power in the hands of too few states for my liking. However, as long as the current rules are in place, they should be followed.

[pampango]

21. If Florida/Michigan win this fight with the DNC, the latter loses its power

to set any primary schedule in 2012, whether it's a national primary day or putting state primaries in a different order. Whatever the DNC said, the states could move their primaries around however they wanted to.

[Arkansas Granny]

23. I agree with you completely. I do think that the issue can be

studied to see if there is a better way of choosing our candidates, but there will still be a need for rules and they will need to be followed.

[cyclezealot]

29. Many Mich Democrats are sick of

unrepresentative states getting the right to eliminate the field before we get a chance to vote. Mi did not solely break the rules. New Hampshire would not let the DNC move up Nevada to be an early on primary state equal to New Hampshire's in importance. NH Secretary of State Gardner would do whatever needed to be first kindmaker. Including have a primary in 2007, if Necessary. Breaking DNC rules also. / The primary process is broken down and some states will no longer tolerate it. / About affecting the electoral vote. Polls show Fla independents are so upset with how Fla Democrats have been treated, 20% are more likely to vote Republican. / To win Michigan and Florida electoral votes, National Democrats will have to work with state party leaders. You think this a good start. You are mistaken.

[earthlover]

12. It makes no sense to seat the delegates....

the candidates were forbidden to campaign in these states. Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan!

FL and MI knew the rules when they broke them. It was well known, and the candidates knew it and avoided these states (for the most part).

Should they have been punished is a debatable issue....but changing the rules after the game has started is simply not fair.

If Obama wins the primaries, wins the pledged delegates, and is ahead in the total delegate count....but then a rule change allowing MI and FL to vote makes Hillary the nominee....there might not be rioting in the streets, but there sure won't be lines to the voting booths in November! All those new voters who wanted change from the old politics will be massively turned off by such a stunt. It goes to show how far the Hillary camp would go to get the nomination, but it would cost the party in November....and not just for the presidential elections. Electoral. Suicide.

However, there is a catch 22 for this strategy....if the Hillary camp want to seat the MI and FL delegates, they would have to get the votes of the remaining delegates. If they don't have the votes anyway to win the nomination, they won't get the votes to seat these states. So on the face of it, it seems like a desperation ploy by the losing side. A ploy that is doubtful it would succeed, but sure to divide the party regardless. Just what we need....division within the ranks. Thanks, Hillary!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

17. I voted "screwm both", but don't have an opinion on FL

I'm in MI, voted "uncommitted" (which to me, at the time, meant "Edwards").

But it wasn't a real primary. There was some confusion because of the selections on the ballot, no Edwards or Obama. Some Dems figured it wouldn't count and either stayed home or voted Republican to mess with them.

A re-do would be too much work to get the rules written and agreed on.

So it's just easier/cheaper to leave MI out of the convention. Maybe set up a beer tent outside the convention hall.

[tomreedtoon]

20. There IS no Florida Democratic Party.

They are all Republicans in donkey suits. They are working with the Republicans to bring down Dean and the Democratic Party. I wouldn't be surprised if these same numbskulls were payed to sit on their hands while the Republicans helped Bush to victory in 2000 and 2004.

I think the Democrats should disenfranchise the current people occupying the Florida Democratic Party offices, and ask the people of the state to find some representatives that believe in democracy and progressive issues.

[LostinVA]

24. Florida yes, Michigan probably not

That one needs some kind of compromise or mulligan. Florida was a fair shake for everyone, so they should be seated. The whole primary thing is broken -- we need a "Primary Day," period, and those primaries need to be closed.

[MethuenProgressive]

25. Why do the Obamas support the disenfranchisement of so many black voters?

Oh yeah. He doesn't care.

[karynnj]

32. In Michigan's case, the primary itself disenfranchised voters

[NoPasaran]

27. A compromise

Seat them, but only after they all write "I must not break DNC rules" five hundred times.

[crispini]

28. LOL! I love it.

:rofl:

[karynnj]

31. This is a mess that should never have happened

Oddly had the DNC used the RNC's punishment - that they would only get half their representation, then we would not be in this position. It would still have been punishment for breaking the rule. I would say that that is hindsight, but the majority of people here thought the situation was a mess when it was happening.

Though a part of me wants to argue that you play the game under the rules agreed upon, that does disenfranchise the PEOPLE in two states. The MI primary itself disenfranchised the voters - by not including the choices due to this agreement. I voted based on my value that you do not disenfranchise voters.

Although both the FL and MI results are tainted. I voted that MI should be revoted and FL seated. In MI, there is no fair way to use the results - Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot. You can't assume that their people came out in equal proportion to HRC's when she was on the ballot. Further, it is not clear who people were voting for when they voted for undecided. What is known is they were not voting for HRC. But there are people here, who were Edwards supporters who, if they voted in MI, would have voted undecided. There is no way, that passes a "red face test" that can be argued as a way to translate these results to what the MI voters in a real election would have done.

In Florida, all of them did not campaign and all of them were on the ballot. So, there was a level playing field. In every state, Obama has gained enormous ground when people actually saw him. There is no reason to assume that the same wouldn't have happened in FL. He is less fully known than HRC, so lack of appearances possibly hurt him more. Time spent in FL would have come from time spent elsewhere for both. You can argue that this states results were influenced by not being legitimate - but

[dansolo]

36. No revote, but I do think Dean made a mistake

Instead of revoking all of their delegates, he should have only seated half of the delegates, and stripped all of the states' super delegates. By not eliminating all the votes, we wouldn't have had the mess from having the candidates not being on the ballot. But a revote would be wrong. I don't like MI and/or FL getting to become the tie-breaking vote.

As it is, I believe it may become a moot point. Assuming that the uncommitted delegates in MI vote for Obama, Hillary only gains 42 delegates. By the time the convention arrives, I don't believe that she will be that close. I don't believe that the super delegates will vote overwhelmingly for her.

[Alexander]

38. Either hold a revote or screw them. They knew what they were doing.

Hopefully Senator Obama will get enough delegates so the issue will be moot.

[stevenleser]

42. The second of two articles I wrote on this

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080208_democratic_catastrop.htm

[XemaSab]

45. thanks

n/t

[bunnies]

44. Other: re-vote or screw em. nt