As much as it makes me grind my teeth to suggest this, is this a possible MI/FL solution?

[IDemo]

I am the last thing from a fan of the Super Delegate system. I think it needs to be thrown in the compost bin where it belongs, but it is part of what the Democratic Party has to deal with for now. So, might the most democratic thing Dean could do, and I'm sure this would require the consent of the committee in charge of such things, be to seat all of both states delegates, and simply grant them the authority given to Super D's in selecting their candidate? You would likely be left with the same situation facing the other Super D's: they will either support whomever they intended to from the beginning, or follow the wishes of the voters (whether statewide or nationwide). This seems like the fairest way possible to me to satisfy all sides, and would not require a costly re-vote, which both states have rejected anyway.

I'm sure there's a giant 'gotcha' here I'm missing, but I don't see it. Anyone?

[DJ13]

1. Despite the Clinton hype, there really is no need for a "solution"

Everyone agreed (even Hillary) that no delegates would result from those primaries, so looking for a solution to a problem that doesnt exist seems kinda silly.

[IDemo]

3. I would ordinarily agree with you

But this is a situation that could become volatile if no clear front-runner exists by the convention. It could be the fairest way to avoid completely disenfranchising the voters of these two states. While the flawed super-delegate system remains, why not use it as a tool to avoid that?

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. except that you are advocating the disenfranchisment of voters

That is certainly undemocratic, and sounds kinda like something Bush would do and we would howl about.

Indeed, had the roles been reversed and Obama won those states, I have no doubt what the posts would be like: "how dare Clinton attempt to disenfranchise voters, see I knew she was evil."

Instead we get, "how dare Clinton attempt to allow voters their say, see, I knew she was evil."

[DJ13]

8. "except that you are advocating the disenfranchisment of voters"

What about those voters who listened to their Party tell them it wasnt going to count and didnt vote as a result?

Thats also disenfranchisement.

Then theres the issue that only Hillary was on the Michigan ballot, that was disenfranchisement of the Obama supporters.

The Clinton spin about disenfranchisement isnt just about those who voted after being told ahead of time it wouldnt count.

The disenfranchisement also has to include those who didnt participate because they believed it when their party told them before those beauty contests it wasnt going to count.

[Pathwalker]

12. There's that lie again! Hillary was NOT the only candidate

on the freaking ballot! Why do people think it's okay to keep posting this disgusting lie?

[DJ13]

14. Oh yeah, Kucinich was on the Mich ballot too

:eyes:

[Pathwalker]

15. And Dodd. And Gravel. And Kucinich campaigned here.

Don't worry, it's really too late for ANY solution - Michigan will go RED in November. Michigan voters are pissed at the Democrats and their inability to make our votes count. ALL the Democrats - not the DNC, not MDP, not Dean - just ALL the Democrats.

There is no solution that will matter to the voters, now.

[DJ13]

17. .......and those matter in what way?

Just admit it.

You're a Hillary supporter and you WANT those uncontested delegates to help her total delegates count.

At least be honest and stop hiding behind some transparent subterfuge of "disenfranchisement".

[Pathwalker]

19. You are spreading an obvious lie, and I called you on it.

And just how am I hiding behind "some subterfuge of disenfranchisement"?
At this point, I no longer give a damn what happens to the delegates - The Democrats have ALL screwed this up so badly that I don't honestly think there is any way it CAN be fixed. No matter which path is chosen, so many people will be angry that it will end up hurting WHOEVER the nominee is, come November.
To me, this isn't about which person I support - it went past that weeks ago, it's about the damage this has already done, and will do to the Democrats, come this fall. I am frankly fed up with watching the Republicans in Michigan mocking ALL the freaking Democrats every damn night on TV - they have made ALL Democrats look like incompetent fools - Obama supporters, Hillary supporters - ALL of us.
I've got friends who supported both candidates that are now unwilling to vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, because THEY feel disenfranchised. They will stay home in November. Thinking this is just about which candidate you support is so short-sighted that it's going to cost us another election - THAT is MY concern. Which candidate gets the nomination is something I don't care about, anymore, either. So, your attacks are meaningless to me. I'm busy trying to figure out how to convince my Democratic friends to even bother to vote this fall, regardless of who is the candidate. I have nothing to offer them, and that is what's bugging me. Not that anyone here gives a damn about THAT.

[1monster]

37. I'm not a Hillary Clinton supporter. Nor am I an Obama supporter. I'll hold my nose and vote for

which ever one of them gets the nomination in the general election.

But I am a Florida voter who wants our votes to count.

I don't see why a fight between the upper echelons of the DNC and the Florida Democrats should disenfranchise the voters, who, by the way, had NO SAY in this fight.

As for that argument that we should have been calling our elected Democratic leaders to tell them to toe the DNC line: They listen to us like George Bush does. Bill Nelson is only marginally better than a republican. John Mica IS a republican.

[1monster]

36. Excuse me, but Florida had a VERY IMPORTANT Amendment on the ballot, concerning

property taxes, assessments, and Homestead Exemptions. If the voters in this state skipped the election because they were told the candidate votes would not count, then they also skipped that vote.

If they didn't vote in this past election, then tough. They also passed on voting on an issue that may nullify some of the Save Our Homes Amendment which caps assessments on Homesteaded properties to three percent a year or inflation rates, which ever is lower...

There was a whole lot more at stake in the election than the primary.

[QC]

21. Disenfranchisement is OK if it benefits one's chosen candidate.

I am fairly certain that if Obama had won in Florida, his minions would be loudly--and constantly--insisting that to fail to seat those delegates is to disenfranchise 1,700,000 loyal Democrats. But since seating them would not benefit Obama, his flock is loudly--and constantly--demanding that their votes be thrown out.

[IDemo]

24. see post #9

[Skip Intro]

11. Once again, we tell FL Dem voters to screw off now, we can write off FL in Nov.

We lost it in 04 when anti-bush sentitment was high. He's not on the ticket this time. Something like this current debacle, if left as is, will surely have a dampening effect on FL Democrats' motivation to go to the polls in Nov. Why should they come to the aid of a party then who tells them their votes are meaningless now?

How do we win without FL?

[MADem]

2. If the Democrats want to avoid this shit in future, they need to

limit participation in their primaries--certainly not allow REPUBLICANS to vote for our candidates in primary contests.

Our primaries are too open, IMO. They encourage mischief, and allow candidates to campaign USING mischief as a weapon.

We don't get the best DEMOCRAT the way we run things now.

[juajen]

6. Amen. I have said this before. It seems the powers that

be just don't listen to us. Go figure.

[anamandujano]

38. A thousand time YES! Absolutely nothing has me angrier than this.

[OzarkDem]

5. Super delegates need to take FL and MI into consideration

when making their decision. Those voters have a right to have their choices counted, even if their delegates aren't seated.

[Clovis Sangrail]

7. how would that *not be letting Fl and Mi have their way?

If anything I think this would be worse than just seating the delegates (which I think is a bad idea).
As I see it, this would take 2 problems and make them both worse.

1)the power of superdelegates would be increased
2)states would have precedent to ignore DNC primary rules in 2012

[IDemo]

13. A super delegate has one vote, as does any other delegate

States need to understand well that this would not be precedent for them to do whatever they wished in the future, and that it was a one time only patch for an imperfect system.

[Clovis Sangrail]

18. so Fl would get 210 supers and Mi would get 156 supers ?

The supers get to vote however they want, right?
They might match their votes to their state, to their hometown, for their favorite candidate, or they might vote for whoever is leading in the rest of the nation.
As far as I know the supers can vote for whomever they want.

I fail to see how this is fair to the voters of FL or the rest of the nation.

I also think it's a bit naive to think that, if their delegates are seated that another state won't try to do the same thing next year and claim this decision as precedent for doing so.
The DNC might not consider it precedent, but that state will and it will likely be foisted onto their voters under that pretext...
and then we'll be in the same situation we are now.

[IDemo]

20. They can vote as any Super D can.

The wide expectation is that most super delegates will generally follow the strongest candidate in the end. While this is certainly not true for all of them, it likely will be for enough to avoid going against the wishes of the voters. Again, I believe that Florida and Michigan were unforgivable fuck-ups in the way they were handled, but that cannot be changed now. What can be changed is making the voters of both states utterly irrelevant in the selection of our nominee and angry enough at the party to stay home or vote for McChucklenuts.

I don't believe anyone seriously wants to replicate this fiasco 4 years from now. Letting everyone know well in advance that this process will not be repeated should serve as ample warning for both state parties and voters.

[Clovis Sangrail]

25. they let everybody know well in advance THIS time

and Fl and Mi still went ahead and moved their primaries up to dates they knew were likely to result in sanctions... and they did it anyways.
You're assuming the all of the party leaders in the various states are rational team players ... and they're clearly not.

Back to the delegates... if FL is given supers that can vote however they want, how is that not disenfranchising the voters of Fl?
They will have delegates that get to vote however... regardless of how the people of Fl actually voted.

[IDemo]

28. As I stated above in #18, Florida and Michigan screwed up

But the voters wound up being the victims of the screwup. Of the four "solutions" posted in GD-P repeatedly: 1)don't seat the delegates, 2) seat them, 3) demand a re-vote, 4) split the delegates 50/50, only #3 comes remotely close to something that might satisfy everyone, and that has been ruled out by both states. 1 and 2 are complete disenfranchisements of either the state or national voters or both, and a fifty-fifty split is a silly, meaningless exercise.

The prevailing 'wisdom' on Super D's is that they are not going to destroy their political careers by going against the will of the electorate. While certainly not true in every case, they know that doing so would also cause damage to the party. Giving FL and MI delegates similar authority would more than likely result in a much more representative picture of these states than any of the above non-solutions.

[Clovis Sangrail]

29. 'prevailing wisdom' isn't representation

whether the voters of Fl and Mi should somehow have been included in the primary process really isn't the point I'm trying to make with you.
In the current system, the will of the people is reflected by assigning delegates based on how that electorate, did in fact, vote.
Refusing to seat their delegates disenfranchises that electorate.
Seating the delegates as supers still leaves that electorate disenfranchised, because even though they are now seated, there is no guarantee the delegates will reflect how their electorate actually voted.

[IDemo]

9. Just to clarify, I am an Obama supporter (formerly Edwards, formerly Kucinich)

I am not suggesting this to give an unfair advantage to Clinton. But by seating all of the delegates and allowing them to select their respective nominee based upon their state's electorate, you would be giving a fairer voice to Michigan and Florida than by either refusing to seat delegates or relying on a non-solution like a 50/50% split.

[WilyWondr]

10. Note to IDemo

The solution for FL and MI was decided upon last year. I hope you were pushing for your solution then, because it is pointless to put forward ideas now after the fact.


Understand?

I am getting SO tired of these dumb "what do we do about FL and MI" threads. There is nothing to them.

[IDemo]

16. Note to WilyWondr

I agree that the rules were set before any of this happened. But Dr. Dean is going to leave a lot of people out in the cold if he simply flatly refuses to deal with the issue in some manner other than locking the door on two critical states. I have seen exactly three scenarios played out ad-nauseum here: seat the delegates, don't seat them, or divide them 50/50. None of those will satisfy as many people overall as what I'm suggesting.

But yes, he also needs to make it absolutely clear there will be no deals of any kind struck in the future.

[Clovis Sangrail]

22. 0.o

But yes, he also needs to make it absolutely clear there will be no deals of any kind struck in the future.

errrrrm... unless "in the future" some state moves their primary up and threatens to disenfranchise their own voters??
Like this time??

If they're seated I'm pretty sure it will cause more problems than it will solve.
If Dean does fold, the whole thing is gonna get a replay in 2012.

[WilyWondr]

23. Dr. Dean ?

What are you talking about? You think Dr. Dean made them change the date of their primary?
Or do you think that Dr. Dean wrote the rules for the 2008 Democratic delegate selection rules?

Because he did neither.

He dealt with it last year when FL and MI made this change. He gave them every opporunity to not change the dates....but they did it anyway.

How many times can you warn people when they are doing something stupid?

The delegates will not and should not be seated.

[1monster]

40. Here's and idea, you haven't suggested, that would make me and probably other Floridians happy.

Seat the delegates elected by the voters.

DON'T SEAT THE SUPER DELEGATES who brought us this mess in the first place.

Let THEM take the consequenses of their actions, not the voters who seem to be nothing more than pawns in this ugly little power struggle.

FWIW: I'm sick to death of the current system where a couple of miniscule states choose our candidates for us, BUT, I think the primaries are being held much much to early these days. Set them back to the first primary being held in March. (Isn't that how it used to be?)

And instead of having a state or two vote in the first primaries, make it a region.

What an idea! Regional primaries with a rotation system as to which regions go first. Any takers?

[Hill_YesWeWill]

26. No, this does NOTHING for the disenfranchised voters

I'm really not even sure how you could think that would be a solution that would make any real difference at all


Any "solution" that allows for voters being disenfranchised is not possible for this party!

[Clovis Sangrail]

31. yes, it is possible that the only solution is to disenfranchise voters

in the primary.
It's not a pleasant solution, but FL and Mi did it to themselves.

If it's never an acceptable solution then get ready for primaries before Thanksgiving in 2012.
Supposing Fl/Mi delegates are seated after being told they couldn't move up their primaries that early:
Why in the world wouldn't Ca move up their primary to Jan 5th?
What would keep NY from moving theirs up to December?
Or Texas moving their to November?

As long as we have this stupid system in place the rules have to be followed if it's to work.

Fl and Mi state dem parties screwed their own electorate.
They should be hung out to dry.

[JackintheGreen]

27. It's been said before, and it will be said again

but do *not* seat the delegates! MI and FL broke CLEARLY STATED rules when they moved up their primaries. It is not as if they were told, "You better not, or, or, or...well, you better not!"

I feel for the voters of those two states, and I understand the impetus behind their elected officials to want to change the primary date. And in interviews they have stated that they understand that there might be pangs and struggles and that they, the elected reps of MI (for example), are willing to suffer them to enjoin change. But they made this move with their eyes open. The voters SHOULD be pissed, but not at the national committee (who I'll say again clearly stated the sanctions before hand), but at the state committee, who disenfranchised their voters by choice anyway. Vote the bums out next time.

In '04 *my* PA primary vote didn't matter. In '00 my PA primary vote didn't matter. But OH, Look!! This year it's still in April and it's gonna matter. For once!

Change will come of this, no doubt, and things will be different in 2012 (we hope) but suck it up MI and FL democratic committees. YOU screwed your voters over. YOU disenfranchised two entire states. Not Howard Dean. Not the DLC. You. You. YOU!

:rant:

[suston96]

30. Do I have to keep posting what the Democratic Party Charter says....?

Every member of the Democratic party will be allowed to participate equally in the nominating process and every vote will be counted......

Section 4.

The National Convention shall be composed of delegates equally divided between men and
women. The delegates shall be chosen through processes which:

(a) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate ..........

(b) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who
participate in the Presidential nominating process.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:i1Dy8P2UOcoJ:www.democrats.org/pdfs/charter.pdf+Democratic+Party+Charter&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Why is there a problem with this? Why does the DNC ignore the Democratic Party Charter?

[Clovis Sangrail]

33. actually, it *doesn't say every vote will be counted

a) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate

That was done.
The schedule was set and all the states were given the opportunity to participate.

(b) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who
participate in the Presidential nominating process.

That was done was well.(at least it has been so far)

Fl and Mi had the opportunity to participate in the scheduled primaries.
Their politicians decided not to.

Blame it on the state democratic parties... not the DNC.

[suston96]

34. Yeah, I know. I bought into that Democratic bullshit about every vote counting....

...but every vote counting is probably in the penumbra of this:

(b) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who
participate in the Presidential nominating process.

But you are correct: The Democratic Party Charter definitely doesn't say "every vote shall be counted". That is just a political myth to get people to come out and vote.

The party hacks will decide which votes will count and which won't. I am glad it is that way. You know what kind of people the Democrats attract.

[Clovis Sangrail]

35. sorry... but that's not really what that part says either

(b) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who
participate in the Presidential nominating process.

The relevant bit is "who participate in the Presidential nominating process".
I can mark my vote for president on my dining room wall Nov 1 ... doesn't mean I participated in the election.


Keep trying though
you'll find something! :hi:

[suston96]

41. The nominating process does not take place on your dining room wall...

I don't have to keep looking. I have already found it. Those who participated by voting in Florida and Michigan are being denied that participation by party hacks in violation of their Charter.

[Clovis Sangrail]

45. nor did the primary election process take place in Fl on 1/29

saying it's valid doesn't make it valid.
sorry, the rules as to when the primary election process could take place in the various states were made very clear to the states.
Both Fl and Mi aknowledged that they knew what those rules were and decided to have "primary elections" at times outside of those rules.

Meaning they were no more "primary elections" than me marking down my vote on the wall
(which is also outside of the rules that define primary elections)

keep trying ;)

[travelpet]

43. That's What the Charter Says...but

"Every member of the Democratic party will be allowed to participate equally in the nominating process and every vote will be counted......"

That may be what the charter says, but in this primary season, it is NOT what the party is doing. I've worked democratic primaries and general elections since I was 14 when JFK was seeking the nomination. I'm 61 and this is only the second time in all the years of eligibility that I was unable to participate. Only this time it wasn't that I was ill, it was that the Obama supporters scheduled the "caucuses" (something we've never had in my state) so the working folk most likely wouldn't be able to attend... 9AM on Saturday morning. And, while we were lead to believe it would be scheduled mid-afternoon, less than a week before the scheduled date, the times were announced. No bank tellers, no hairdressers, no restaurant employees, no doctors' nurses, etc., etc. Who could attend where the wealthy who don't work and the college students who don't work and want their Saturday nights free. It appears to me that the Obama people are into disenfranchising voters whenever it appears they won't win or it might be a close race. How can anyone in the democratic party go along with telling thousands if not millions living in two large states that they don't count because their state party (or in the case of Florida, their republican governor) didn't follow the party "rules". Give me a break. I can see it now, the Democrats at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Ravy]

32. The "gotcha".

That is basically the way all other states primaries and caucuses are. The delegate count you see posted by the media is because the people who fill those seats are already supporters of Candidate X or Candidate Y.

Pledged delegates from state conventions can, and have, changed their support on the floor. So lets say in a primary where Clinton has "won" 35 delegates, and Obama 35 delegates, that means that they will send 35 people who strongly support Clinton, and 35 who strongly support Obama to the convention. So making them "super delegates" essentially changes nothing- the pledged delegates are chosen to be seated because of their affiliation with a candidate. The superdelegates are appointed by other means other than their support for a particular candidate.

[Avalux]

39. No. There is no solution other than abiding by the rules as agreed upon at the beginning.

Rules are rules and we can't bend them to suit a candidate.

[suston96]

42. Yeah, the rules. Here they are - From the Democratic Party Charter:

Section 4.

The National Convention shall be composed of delegates equally divided between men and
women. The delegates shall be chosen through processes which:

(a) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate and include
affirmative action programs toward that end,

(b) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who
participate in the Presidential nominating process.

Just follow the rules which state that every Democrat who votes participates equally by having those votes count equally for delegate selection.

Has the Democratic Party Charter been changed to allow party hacks to exclude entire elections from individual states? The Charter must have been changed to permit such a democratically repugnant prohibition. Please post that change.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:i1Dy8P2UOcoJ:www.democrats.org/pdfs/charter.pdf+Democratic+Party+Charter&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

[1awake]

44. Dean has followed every single one of those rules..

its just that the state reps decided to strong arm for a better deal.

[TexasObserver]

46. HELL NO!! In fact, most of them should be denied delegate credentials for doing this.

Any Democrat who helped to foist this mess in those two states should be denied credentials to even enter the convention hall.