What would you like to see happen re: FL and MI?

[spooky3]

Negotiations are on-going regarding the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates, vs. other alternatives. Some of the rationale for holding a "do-over", vs. doing something else, is discussed here (so I won't repeat it):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

What do you think would be the best, fairest resolution? Yes, I am equating that with "what you would like to see happen", because I would like to believe that Democrats are fair-minded people.

Thanks for your votes and thoughts.

strange, I have previewed this several times but the preview doesn't match the typing - even after edits. Hope this edit works.

[Muttocracy]

1. I'm not sure, but either no-representation or do-over

You can't go with results of a round of voting that most of the eligible voters were told wouldn't count.

Honestly, I'd like a do-over of the whole primary but that's just me.

[Birthmark]

2. FL's delegates should be seated.

FL had a legitimate primary. All the candidates were on the ballot. We had a record turnout, 133% higher than in 2004. There is simply no reason or logical justification for a "do over" in FL.

MI is a bit trickier. But I'll back whatever the *people* of MI want. It's their State and their votes.

[Dr.Phool]

4. Florida DID NOT have a legitimate primary.

No candidates campaigned here. The only campaigning done was the party brass, Bill Nelson, and a few scumbag congress critters openly pushing Hillary.

I watched it. And I've seen the same assholes pull the same shit in other races previously. That's how they do things in Florida.

People voted, but we didn't have a primary campaign.

[Birthmark]

6. There is no necessity for a campaign.

This isn't 1860. There are many, many sources of information. Many, like TV, radio, or the newspaper are fairly passive. There's also the internet, the local Dem outlets, etc. from which all kinds of information can be gathered. (Much of it true! lol ) So, the physical presence of the candidates is certainly no problem to the legitimacy of the vote. And please don't tell me that you think that the lack of 60 second ads was any kind of detriment. Those things aren't for informing the public --they are for manipulating the public. I didn't miss them a bit. I can't remember when I enjoyed a primary more. No inundation is a GOOD thing.

There is no legal requirement for a campaign, either. There is simply no rational basis for discounting the result. And my guy finished third.

[joshcryer]

15. Not only that, many many small states don't get campaigning in these elections.

It's just because it's a big state that clearly campaigning is more important than voting!

[Kittycat]

27. It's not just about campaigning, it's about the countless people that DIDN'T vote

thinking that it didn't matter. Scores of HOMEOWNERS turned out to vote on the special issues, but because it didn't pertain to the many renters - they were told to stay home in some areas even. I've listened to first hand reports and read about them for weeks now.

And no way can MI count.. The only person on the ballot was Clinton.

[Birthmark]

32. What people are those?

Do you have any evidence that that happened? FL Democratic Primary turnout soared from just 750k in 2004 to around 1.75 MILLION this time. Democratic turnout was similar (perhaps a bit above) Texas' primary yesterday.

The "people stayed home" argument is completely without any support.

[Kittycat]

41. Do you not listen to the radio and news? Do you not read posts all over the web?

You can't supply any information that people didn't stay home. The fact remains that they were told their vote wouldn't count. That in and of itself throws the competition. Not to mention HRC had NO problem with counting out FL, until she realized she needed it. The fact remains - Rules are the Rules. I have no problem with FL getting a revote, but I will protest in the streets against it being seated as is.

[Birthmark]

42. 1. I don't care about Hillary

2. It is your burden to support your claim that people stayed home.

3. The rules may be the rules, but they shouldn't trump our basic core beliefs, such as the right to vote.

4. Violations of the rules could have been, still can be, and should result in justice. Disenfranchising average Democrats in FL is disproportionate, ill-aimed, and ill-considered. The only thing it tells me is that the DNC doesn't value my vote.

[joshcryer]

14. Obama supporters: believing campainging is more important than voting.

Fucking dispicible.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

18. Many states got the same treatment! I guess the voters didn't count there either!

[rocktivity]

5. Thanks for the reminder that this issue has a human side.

Strictly on principle, I support Howard Dean's refusal to reward MI and FL for breaking rules they'd agreed to--what is he supposed to tell the other 48 states? But it's those to decided to break those rules and ignore the consequences who should be doing the suffering, not the voters.

:headbang:
rocknation

[spooky3]

8. yes, I think that's a good point.

[Birthmark]

12. I understand that some action has to be taken.

But I think it's important to take the correct action. An unfair response, such as disenfranchising the People, also sends a message to the other 48 states. And it's probably not the message Democrats at large or the DNC would *want* to send if they thought about it.

And thanks for your kind words.

[Orangepeel]

24. How many people didn't vote because they were told it wouldn't count?

We can't know (except the fact that more republicans than democratics voted is a clue), which is a problem with changing the rules in the middle of a contest.

[Birthmark]

26. Not many.

That is easy to tell from the fact that in 2004, a mere 750,000 FL Dems voted in the Primary. By contrast, in 2008 1,750,000 voted. So the assertion that any stayed home because it "wouldn't count" is probably specious. If for no other reason, many would vote because there was an important property tax issue on the ballot.

If you have some REAL evidence, I'll be happy to take a look at it, though.

[Orangepeel]

29. We can't know what would have happened

Somebody could take a poll, but I don't believe the retrospective would be reliable.

I do know that in the rest of the country, democratic turnout was higher than republican turnout but in Florida, republican turnout was higher than democratic turnout. Perhaps republican turnout was superinflated, but perhaps Democratic turnout wasn't as high as it should have been.

[spooky3]

34. but isn't this a good reason to hold a primary NOW?

That way we'll know what the voters really want. Other than the expense, I don't see a good argument against it.

[Orangepeel]

39. As I understand it, Dean/the DNC has told them to go ahead

put a plan together, get it approved by the DNC and do it before June 10. The Florida Party has always been able to do this; they've just been too pigheaded to agree to any kind of compromise.

I don't have a problem with that (although I'd be in favor of still stripping Florida of it's superdelegates just because I think Bill Nelson and Karen Thurman are the ones in Florida who do deserve to lose their votes).

[Birthmark]

44. We don't need to know.

It can be assumed it didn't happen if it can't be shown to have happened. There is absolutely no evidence that people in FL stayed home because it "wouldn't count." None.

You claim that Republican turnout was higher. That is true. From that, you infer that that shows Democrats stayed home. However, more Republicans than Democrats turned out in 2000 --the last year the Repubs had a contested Primary, of course. Why did Dems stay home in 2000? Or is the likely explanation that Republicans vote more in Presidential Primaries than Democrats do?

I think it's the latter when we couple that with the fact that Democratic votes increased from 750k in 2004 to 1.75 MILLION in 2008.

Again, if you have some real evidence, I'll be happy to look at it. Inferences aren't evidence, though.

[Orangepeel]

46. In 2000, Dems stayed home because Bill Bradley had already dropped out

by the time Florida's primary had rolled around and Gore was already the presumptive nominee.

I agree that we don't need to know anything. The rules are in place and we just need to follow them. You are the one arguing to change the rules based on turnout. I don't believe turnout is a good reason to change the rules because we don't know what turnout would have been under different rules.

I'm fine with keeping the rules in place.

[Birthmark]

48. If it's all the same to you...

...I'll handle my end of the discussion. Thanks. ;)

Neither I, nor my wife, nor anyone that I personally know broke any of the rules. Disenfranchising us for the acts of others is barbarous, frankly. It is not an action consistent with liberal or Democratic values.

Now, if they want to punish those actually responsible, fine by me. I'll support the DNC wholeheartedly if they take such action.

But...(see sig line)

[bullwinkle428]

3. The way things stand now, these voters have essentially been disenfranchised!

We, as Democrats, should not find that acceptable at all - I don't think that anything less than a re-do of each primary should suffice in this situation...

[spooky3]

7. I really don't think Dems. would be smart to alienate Dem. voters in two big

swing states. I agree with you that a do-over would be a good compromise, at least - states should NOT be rewarded for violating national rules; otherwise the Dem. national party is toothless and disorganization will reign supreme. But disenfranchisement seems to be an inappropriate penalty - it doesn't fit the "crime", especially with such a close race, with so much at stake this fall, and with several reasonable alternatives available. If each candidate is confident in his/her ability to convince the voters, s/he should support a compromise, at least. I hope the funding will be found to do something like this.

[rocktivity]

19. The date movers were told what the consequences would be if they broke the rules.

If it isn't fair to make the voters the victims, it's isn't fair to make the DNC the villains, either.

:headbang:
rocknation

[spooky3]

22. I agree; I hope you're making a general comment rather than replying

to me w/r/ to DNC.

There are alternatives - maybe ensure that the legislative leaders that pushed for breaking the rules receive no state backing for their own future campaigns, or something like that?

[rocktivity]

23. Since you yourself said, "THE DEMS would(n't) be smart"

I didn't have much choice BUT to be general!

;)
rocknation

[spooky3]

25. I'm either tired or dense (or both) but I am not sure I'm getting your point

I thought we were agreeing? I believe that the party (all of us) stands to lose if we don't find some type of compromise re: FL and MI, strategically, especially when there are ways to do that (thought expensive) that don't demonize the DNC or disenfranchise the voters.

As I noted in the prior post: "states should NOT be rewarded for violating national rules; otherwise the Dem. national party is toothless and disorganization will reign supreme." I am not saying the DNC didn't make itself clear or that on principle it has no right to say "no way we will count your delegates or take any further action." I think they're entitled to do so on principle. However, I think that would be wrong to the voters in those states GIVEN the other circumstances noted -- particularly that they have alternatives -- and strategically unwise.

[rocktivity]

28. We ARE agreeing

The candidates are not the real victims here, the voters are.

Because of that, the DNC has to come up with a solution--but they are not the ones who caused the problem.

As I said in post #5, I'm looking at this strictly as a matter of principle. But since that hurts the voters, maybe I'm being TOO strict.

At any rate, the LAST thing I want to do is disrupt the first rational, intelligent discussion of this issue I've seen on DU in months!

:headbang:
rocknation

[spooky3]

31. ok, thanks, time for me to turn in early!

[high density]

38. What were the state parties thinking when they took actions to disenfranchise their fellow Democrats

?

The parties in the 48 other states plus GU, PR, etc all seem to have been able to stick within the rules.

[anonymous171]

9. re-vote in MI for sure.

[Sir Jeffrey]

10. I think we should trust Howard Dean to do the right thing...

he has been an excellent chair. If he thinks a revote is necessary, he'll make sure it is conducted fairly for both candidates. If he doesn't, then it probably means Ed Rendell and Terry McAullife are trying to screw over Obama.

I don't want to see this contest drag out any longer, but it really does bother me that your average FL and MI voter are paying the price for their state organization's idiocy.

Realistically, if this contest is going to drag out into the summer anyway, we might as well let FL and MI revote. We're going to end up losing in the fall if that happens anyway, since we'll be watching two premier candidates destroy each other for 4-6 months.

If the Supers are going to end this thing soon, then everyone should just let it go.

[L0oniX]

11. Play by the rules ...damn it all to hell. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Two do-overs

[joshcryer]

17. I'm for this, it's the only reasonable scenario. A closed Democratic only primary.

[TheDonkey]

20. No delegates

FL will be red in the GE but I do not think we would have won there anyway against McLame

[dansolo]

21. Whatever happens, the superdelegates in FL and MI should NOT be seated

They are the ones that started this mess. There are arguments that can be made about disenfranchising the voters, but the state officials should have absolutely no say in the matter of selecting the nominee.

[joshcryer]

45. They should be seated if a revote is not allowed.

Otherwise Obama will not win.

[New Dawn]

30. No delegates in FL and MI should be seated.

The leaders of those state parties should have followed the rules and not have tried to undermine Howard Dean.

[high density]

33. Delegates were removed in 2007 by the DNC and the candidates were well aware of this

The time for this argument was last year when the state parties were too stupid to fix the dates of their contests.

If we let them vote again, what purpose do the rules have in the future?

[WHAT]

35. censure?...

as in C

as in Cheating

as in T

as in Trouble right here in

D as in Democracy

[Fox Mulder]

36. Have a closed primary in each state within the next three weeks or so.

[stop the bleeding]

37. This Thread Should be Called the****Official FL MI Debate Thread****

:beer:

[stillcool]

40. The Florida Democratic Party...

has to be accountable. They broke the rules, disenfranchised the Democratic voters of their state, and forfeited participating in the Primary. I think it would be great if they had another election, but only if the people of that state truly understand what their state party did. Otherwise, why bother having rules?

[RiverStone]

43. The voters got screwed in BOTH states...

Due to state party arrogance.

I think a re-do is the only fair option; seating them as is based on primaries that were not official would be total bullshit.

QUESTION: Anybody care to speculate how Obama would do in MI or FLA? Seems Hillary would win FLA with the tons of elderly voters. But would Obama fare better in MI?

[Balbus]

47. Disenfranchised voters in Ohio and Florida?

That's new...

[spooky3]

49. kicking to seek daytime votes