What some folks are missing about Florida and Michigan...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Lets say, hypothetically, that Hillary Clinton won the nomination under a set of circumstances where no delegates were seated from Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, District of Columbia, and Wyoming.

Obviously, if you eliminated those twenty states (including DC) from the process, Clinton would win easily.

Would any person alive consider her nomination legitimate as the choice of the nation? Sure, it would be within a set of rules, but the elimination of twenty one states off the top would make her nomination a complete joke. She would be the nominee in name only, and Obama supporters would contend until the end of time that Obama was the actual choice of the American people and had been robbed by some arbitrary, anti-democratic bullshit. And they would be right!

It would be an asterisk nomination, remembered as the year the Democratic Party went nuts and eliminated twenty states.

Well, guess what?

Florida and Michigan are larger than the following states combined:

Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, District of Columbia, and Wyoming

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank01.htm

We are talking about 10% of the population of the United States.

The existing FL and MI votes and delegates are bogus, and will not, and should not be recognized in any way.

But if Florida and Michigan do not hold legitimate primaries before June 10th (sanctioned by Howard Dean and the DNC as legitimate, unlike the previous rule-breaking votes) then this is no more a national primary contest than it would be if we just shit-canned the twenty smallest states.

In a race this divisive, the nominee needs to be accepted by all at the end of the day, and had better be seen as the clear choice of the nation, not the choice of 90% of the nation.

_________________________

Florida 18,089,888 ...4
Michigan 10,095,643 ...8
_________________________

Arkansas 2,810,872 ...32
Kansas 2,764,075 ...33
Utah 2,550,063 ...34
Nevada 2,495,529 ...35
New Mexico 1,954,599 ...36
West Virginia 1,818,470 ...37
Nebraska 1,768,331 ...38
Idaho 1,466,465 ...39
Maine 1,321,574 ...40
New Hampshire 1,314,895 ...41
Hawaii 1,285,498 ...42
Rhode Island 1,067,610 ...43
Montana 944,632 ...44
Delaware 853,476 ...45
South Dakota 781,919 ...46
Alaska 670,053 ...47
North Dakota 635,867 ...48
Vermont 623,908 ...49
District of Columbia 581,530 (X)
Wyoming 515,004 ...50

[MadHound]

1. Well guess what, Florida, at this point is pretty much stuck

Their legislature has voted down a revote, Hillary has rejected anything other than allowing the candidates to be seated as is, which hopefully even you agree is patently unfair. Therefore the only option left that is truly fair and just is to not seat those candidates.

[Arkansas Granny]

6. Does Hillary have any actual influence over the decisions concerning

the delegates from MI and FL? This is not the first post I've seen today that states that Hillary has rejected or turned down a possible solution. I thought that responsibility rested with the DNC.

[spoony]

8. Yeah I've seen that too, even in the media

Where one candidate or another has "rejected" a proposed solution and like you I thought it was just about the states and the DNC.

[MadHound]

9. No, actually both candidates have been consulted on possible solutions to this campaign

Solutions like a fifty-fifty split, etc. Hillary has rejected these.

[Arkansas Granny]

14. I had not heard this. Do you have a link?

[MadHound]

17. No, I don't, sorry.

I heard it wafting out of the radio on NPR one morning a week or so ago.

[SKKY]

56. Of course she does!

SHE'S A CLINTON GOD DAMN IT!!!! :sarcasm:

[truedelphi]

111. It is the DLC that has the influence.

Senator Clinton is clearly their candidate.

They can pull legal strings and get their woman in - and I don't think Clinton herself cares one bit about the country.

One of the Superdelegates happens to be the governor of Pensylvannia. (Rendell) He is very much a DLC clone, and he was spouting off on Bill Maher that it would fall to him and other superdelegates to see to it that our country was not stuck with a "cheerleader" who had been voted in buy the people (He used the word "people" with great condescending wrath - he might as well have used the word "mob")

If that is any indication of what We The People are up against, I would say that odds might even favor Hillary getting the nomination

[Johnny__Motown]

37. I suggest removing half of the delegates. same as the repugs did. That would make the impact minimal

but still allow each state to be represented.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

102. What's half of zero?

:think:

[Seeker30]

47. Get your damn facts straight, its Obama that is rejecting a solution

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1222769820080312

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama sharply disagreed on disputed contests in Florida and Michigan on Wednesday, as Florida Democratic officials finished a proposal for a new mail-in presidential primary.

Clinton, who won unsanctioned contests in both states, said the results should be honored or new votes held. Obama said he abided by party rules in skipping the two contests and questioned Clinton's call now for counting them.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

80. See post #79 for update

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

82. .

[lmbradford]

92. actually....

The state of FL would have to change their state laws in order to have a mail in so of course BOTH candidates shot down that option.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Yeah, that's why the states have different numbers of delegates, and electoral votes--

that's taking population into account. And...so?

[LisaM]

3. There are a number of cities in both Michigan and Florida that are bigger than Wyoming

and yet, Wyoming at this point counts for more.

The whole point from the beginning was that Michigan and Florida both felt that they should have more voice in the nomination than the traditional early states. The party essentially ignored that.

[spoony]

11. That's an excellent summary of the problem

It escapes me how people can run around this site posting that the states were "greedy" for moving the dates. Greed is the last thing it's about. I don't know how things are in FL but MI was essentially crying, "Hello, we have a dying state here!" trying to get some attention. Economy aside though, size...matters.

[LisaM]

15. Well, and as it turns out, Michigan's problems are now everyone's

Michigan wanted the candidates to pay attention to the economy. Well, now they are - proving that it would have behooved them to pay attention to Michigan all along.

[last1standing]

21. I don't know if you live in Michigan, but its miserable here.

Everyone who can is moving. Only thing holding back many is the fact they can't sell their houses. That hasn't stopped the young adults who have grabbed their degrees and taken the next flight out. Its scary.

[LisaM]

Well, I'm from there, and most of my family is there.

I love it dearly and go as often as I can - truly one of the most beautiful places on earth. Sigh. I know full well how it is. The rest of the country didn't think diddly about the problems, but I was telling everyone I knew that the problems were waiting to go national.

My family has been in Michigan since 1803 or so. My great-great grandmother taught school in the UP (I have her pasty recipe), though in general, we were Detroiters from way back (8 generations in Detroit).

[last1standing]

18. Spoony, that's just not true.

Michigan agreed to the primary calendar just like everyone else. It was only after the fact when Debbie Dingell, a vociferous Clinton supporter, came up with the idea to move the primary up because most of the politicians in MI support her and they thought it would be a quick and decisive win. Clinton would take the nomination early and the power brokers in MI could claim the credit helping their reps in the national arena. It was pure, dirty politics and it failed miserably - much like everything else they've done here.

Honestly, if Granholm and the rest wanted to put a national spotlight on Michigan they'd hold a caucus. The attention we'd receive would rival anything that any other state has had to this point. Unfortunately, our politicians apparently have put their careers before their state's well-being.

[spoony]

31. Not everything is about friggin' Hillary or friggin' Obama

Carl Levin has been annoyed by the DNC's worship of two small and nonrepresentative states for some time now, and was a major part of moving the date.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080109/NEWS06/80109047

[last1standing]

41. And as much as I like Levin, he was wrong on this.

And yes, in this case it had a lot to do with friggin' Hillary and friggin' Obama. That's just the truth of it all. This was a naked power play that has failed miserably. Like I said, if the state of Michigan's economy means more to these people than their own advancement they'll have the caucus. If they do that, then I'll be happy to eat my words. More than happy. You can even bookmark this and call me out on it. Hell, to help this state, I'd strip and dance naked in Hart Plaza. Not that I'd be the first....

[Two Americas]

97. lol

Detroiter here...

"I'd strip and dance naked in Hart Plaza. Not that I'd be the first...."

Can't ya come up with anything original?

:rofl:

[anigbrowl]

20. Unilaterally voting to ignore the national party...

was stupid too. They knew what the penalty was likely to be before they did it. They called the DNC's bluff, but it turned out that the DNC had a strong hand. I'm all for working out a compromise solution, but the legislatures of MI and FL walked into this with their eyes wide open, and they are the ones who bear the greatest responsibility for the issue.

And please don't start with 'it was a GOP plot'. The Florida legislation was introduced by a Democrat and passed 150-1.

[Birthmark]

4. Interesting

[yardwork]

5. The Party can't give the delegates from FL and MI to Hillary.

Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI! And most of his likely voters in FL face more barriers to voting than most of Hillary's likely voters, so it's quite plausible that a greater percentage of Obama's voters didn't bother to vote in FL because they were told that the primary wouldn't count.

The most the Democratic Party can do now is allow MI and FL to hold their primaries again, this time with both Obama and Hillary on the ballots, and count the votes from the re-do. I would be in favor of that.

[Birthmark]

7. Upon what...

...is this nonsense based: "And most of his likely voters in FL face more barriers to voting than most of Hillary's likely voters, so it's quite plausible that a greater percentage of Obama's voters didn't bother to vote in FL because they were told that the primary wouldn't count."

There isn't a SCRAP of unambiguous evidence to indicate that that's the case!

Talk about scorched Earth! "My candidate will lose if we count those votes, so let's disenfranchise 1.75 million Democratic voters."

[anigbrowl]

22. How does holding a new primary disenfranchise anyone?

I'd love to hear your explanation of that one.

[Birthmark]

27. I've already voted.

...in an election held in the State of Florida and in accordance with all laws. A new primary would throw that vote out Throwing that vote out is disenfranchisement.

[Labors of Hercules]

58. bullshit.

You consider yourself less "disenfranchised" by casting a vote that will not seat any delegates than if it is replaced by a new vote that has delegates attached?

[Birthmark]

62. You're spinning.

It isn't a comparative. Throwing out my vote is disenfranchisement. It is utterly unnecessary and unjustified.

[Labors of Hercules]

120. in an unfair election, the only thing you can do is redo the election.

This election was unfair. period.

[Zhade]

107. ...in an illegitimate election. Try again.

NT!

[DeadElephant_ORG]

23. that isn't even close to what yardwork argued. Quit throwing up strawmen.

Is there "no scrap of evidence" that Obama was not on the ballet in MI? Is there "no scrap of evidence" that voters in FL were told that their votes wouldn't count. Yardwork didn't argue for disenfranchising anybody. He said he favored do-over votes. YOU are arguing to disenfranchise voters by insisting upon counting votes cast in illegitimate primaries.

[Birthmark]

33. I quoted him directly, FFS!!

And a new primary is disenfranchising everyone who already voted. It's a non-starter.

Now, I'll propose this again: If people are worried about the (hypothetical) people who stayed home, then FL can allow an addendum to the votes already cast by allowing those (hypothetical) to cast mail-in ballots. It should be cheap, easy, and quick to count those (hypothetical) votes. Plus, it technically re-opens the Florida Primary (to assuage the DNC's delicate sensibilities), while NOT throwing out votes that were made legally and in good faith.

But that would make sense, so I don't see it happening.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

40. "legally and in good faith?" No campaigning was permitted for God's sake.

That prohibition against campaign inherently favors the candidate with higher name recognition - YOUR candidate obviously. That is not what I call legal or good faith. Every place that Obama has campaigned he has closed the gap and/or surpassed Clinton. But to you it's only fair if the primaries are held while his hands are tied behind his back. Nice.

And a new primary vote is "a non-starter"? So bottom line for you is "my way or the highway" and our party be damned.

There is something more important than Hillary winning the primary.

You fools are costing us the White House NOW. Even filthy rich egomaniac Mitt Romney had more grace than Hillary - or her supporters.

[Birthmark]

53. My candidate came in third...with 14% of the vote

Thanks for asking.

But this has nothing to do with any candidate. It is a fundamental right that is at issue. We knew the candidates and there was ample news coverage...in addition to C-SPAN, the internet, etc. Throwing out 1.75 million votes (a 233% increase from 2004) on the basis that there were no speeches here is a pretty callous disregard of voting rights.

[Zhade]

108. Then there's the fact that Clinton actually DID campaign in FL, but called it a "fund raiser".

It was a wholly illegitimate election, as was MI.

Thank goodness the DNC actually understands that fact, unlike some people here.

[truedelphi]

112. Funny you should mention good Ol' Mitch

I somewhat judge the candidates by how I feel when they appear on TV.

Within two years of taking office, I had to change channels if Bush came on. It was like a dark force field entered the house if he was on the tube and I was in the room.

During the initial primaries, when Romney came on, I would think, what an elite snob.

And then I noticed that my stomach recoiled in exactly the same manner when Hillary came on.

She had the same sense of entitlement.

[yardwork]

60. Who is this "him" of whom you speak?

I'm a lesbian. It says so right on the box.

[Birthmark]

63. A thousand apologies.

I, um, don't see your box. :)

[yardwork]

66. That's a line from Toy Story. Sorry. My profile says I'm female, etc.

It's ok - my posting name seems to sound masculine to a lot of people. I get confused for a man a lot here in DU. I'm just teasing you!

:hi:

[Birthmark]

68. I understand.

I get called lots of things. My favorite is once in about 90 minutes I was called both "a liberal Yankee elitist" and "a dumb Southern redneck." lol

It's days like that that make it all worthwhile, you know? :)

[yardwork]

70. LOL! Absolutely - that's our DU!

[yardwork]

59. There's plenty of evidence. Obama's supporters are more likely to be

black, low-income, and/or young. Each of those demographic groups face more barriers to voting than the demographic groups that favor Hillary, who are more likely to be white, affluent, and middle aged. Those are facts. People spend their careers analyzing demographic voting patterns.

I've spent my life working on increasing access to health care for underserved groups, and I am quite familiar with the various barriers they face. The groups that are more likely to vote for Obama are less likely to have permanent and/or longtime addresses and are more likely to have been "purged" from the voting rolls in Florida and are less likely to have transportation to get to the polling places and are more likely to have hourly jobs that require them to punch a timeclock and are more likely to have young children at home. All these factors mean that Obama's supporters are more likely to face barriers to voting that affect them more than they affect Hillary's likely voters.

The Democratic Party told Florida that their primary wouldn't count if they held it early. People believed it wouldn't count, and had no reason to go to the polls and vote. To count the votes of those who did go to the polls would be patently unfair.

And Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. How can you possible expect that state to assign delegates?

[Birthmark]

61. So your "evidence" is your assumptions...

...and your experience, and what you infer? Not gonna cut it. There is simply no credible evidence that people stayed home in any significant numbers in FL. Turnout was 233% that of 2004's Democratic Primary. Claiming people stayed home is nonsense...unless you can provide *actual evidence* that it occurred. Inferring that it was the case from "logic" is completely uncompelling...particularly as an excuse to disenfranchise 1.75 million voters.

Besides, I've posited a way that that wouldn't be an issue. Mail-in for those that haven't already voted. The addresses your concern and mine.

You are utterly correct about MI, though. That is indeed a situation that needs a different resolution. A "re-vote" there would actually be a first vote since most of the candidates weren't even on the ballot.

(Btw, I do applaud your work.)

[yardwork]

67. I'm fine with the mail-in or some sort of do-over in FL.

Qualitative evidence does count as evidence, by the way.

Neither Obama nor Hillary were my first, second, or third choices either. Sigh.

[Birthmark]

76. Well, how about this?

We leave my vote alone and allow those who didn't vote in January to vote? That's as far as I can go in good conscience. Otherwise, it's throwing out my vote. I'm rather territorial about my vote. It was a good vote. It made me very happy. :)

[yardwork]

85. Seems fine to me. Now that we agree, who do we tell?

Smile!

[Birthmark]

99. Well, I'm sure the DNC reads this board...

...particularly my posts. lol

Howard, if you're reading this take my idea and claim it's yours. I won't tell anyone. This time.

[yardwork]

100. Howard, you've got my ok too - run with it, baby!

But, Dr. Dean, remember - you owe us! LOL!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

106. I think you mean "idear"

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

86. That's intriguing... though probably unworkable.

[Birthmark]

98. It's simple enough.

But the Republican State Legislature will never allow it. Nor will it allow a new primary. The ball is really in the DNC's court. Honestly, the best way to cut the Gordian Knot at this stage is to award FL 1/2 its delegates (minus the superdelegates). That allows the DNC to impose a penalty, which they feel is important; allows my vote to be counted, which is important to me; and penalizes most the jackasses that got this mess started --the superdelegates.

MI is just a mess. I can't think of any realistic way that MI can be counted other than a new primary or a new caucus. Nothing else seems to make sense in their situation.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

104. I agree that a penalty is important, but I cannot see my way to

penalizing anyone, anywhere, ever by discounting their representation in an ostensibly democratic process.

The principles involved are too fundamental.

Maybe they can bar elected officials from those states from sitting on any DNC committee for two years or something... that would be plenty embarrassing while not tampering with one man, one vote.

Or perhaps they could strip the delegations of any voice on party matters, like the platform, etc.. and their only vote is for the nominee.

It's all tricky.

[foxer]

95. How about you add 20% to Obama that he picks up campaigning

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. The illegal primaries will not count.

But it is a matter of great importance to the party, and to the perceived legitimacy of Senator Obama's eventual nomination, that proper DNC sanctioned primaries be held in those two states.

(If it's DNC sanctioned then there is no rules violation. I am not talking about changing the rules. The rules say the early illegal "primaries" held in those states don't count, so they must not count.)

[Birthmark]

64. The primary was not "illegal."

The LAW said that that was the day the People of Florida had to vote. Those votes are perfectly legal. To claim that DNC rules trump the Rights of the People is misguided, short-sighted, and utlimately destructive to the DNC AND the eventual nominee.

Now, if the DNC wants to impose an *appropriate* penalty on those who actually broke the rules (super-delegates), I'll wholeheartedly support that. But the DNC overreacted and penalized the innocent, as well.

[Cant trust em]

12. Sounds good to me.

When should this take place?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

116. Better to just say it wasn't a valid contest

We don't know how it would have gone if it was legit, but it wasn't, so it doesn't matter.

[FlyingSquirrel]

13. This Obama supporter agrees with you.......

to a point. However, if there is no re-vote in MI then your point is not valid with regard to MI since both remaining candidates WERE on the ballot in all the other states.

Furthermore, Edwards had dropped out of the race which CLEARLY had an effect on the voting outcome in all those states except NV and NH.

Other than that, however, I don't support excluding FL and MI. I do support some kind of penalty however. The DNC has the right to set their rules. I have proposed a solution of penalizing those two states half their delegates and superdelegates, and awarding Obama the uncommitted delegates from MI. (half of them.) A re-vote in MI would be fine as well. (It's not looking good for FL re-vote).

These two states should be represented in some fashion, but also penalized in some fashion. The fact that Obama was not on the ballot in MI should be recognized and accounted for in some fashion. If both these factors are fairly addressed, I have no problem with MI and FL being seated. And I am hoping that they WILL be seated.

I expect that many of the superdelegates are already taking your argument into consideration in their support of either Obama or Clinton, and that this is why she still leads the superdelegate race. So in a way, the current system is perhaps already set up to allow for reasonable compensation for the complete disenfranchisement of MI/FL at the Convention should that actually occur (which, again, I hope and believe will not).

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. Proper primaries are better for Obama in the long run

I reject any use of the vote totals from the banned primaries. That's the rules.

And I don't like penalties because that flies in the face of democracy... a person in Michigan should count as a person, not half a person. This mess is not the voters fault, after all.

(One penalty is self-enforcing: that FL and MI spent millions and millions of dollars running bogus primaries that count for nothing.)

But Dean says the DNC is fine with the states holding legitimate contests now, if both candidates agree. And both candidates should favor it.

Clinton should favor it because she needs the help.

Obama should favor it because it is essential that the legitimacy of his eventual nomination be universally accepted.

And another upside of holding legit primaries is that Obama could introduce himself to the people of FL and MI.

MI is a must-have state and FL would clinch the election.

[WilyWondr]

52. not the voters fault ?

Who's fault do you think it was?

The changes made to the dates were made by the representatives of the people in those states. It was all over the local news/print in FL and MI last summer. Where was the outrage then?

This is called a representative democracy. If the people did not want their state representatives to change the dates they would not have changed it. It did not squeek by either. Only 2 state senators in FL voted against it.

Have you heard of any recall elections in FL or MI to recall the state officials that screwed this up last summer? No? Me neither.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

57. By all means, throw the bums out. But the point of the OP remains.

However one argues how we got here, the bottom line is that we are looking at the closest nomination race I've ever seen, and a party on the verge of fracture, and as things stand the nominee will be decided with 10% of the country having no say in the decision.

It really doesn't matter whose fault it is.

Nobody winning a close nomination vote that excludes 10% of the voters in the country, for whatever reason, is going to look good.

If proper primaries are held now Obama will lose maybe 50-60 delegates... tops. That's a small price to pay for removing this blemish from the nominating process.

[FlyingSquirrel]

83. Actually if proper primaries are NOT held he'll lose 56 delegates

plus perhaps another 11 superdelegates. If proper primaries ARE held, he'll probably improve on that since he now has more name recognition and is now seen as being a legitimate candidate where before Super Tuesday there was some question in many people's minds.

So I'd say MI/FL would cost him perhaps 22 delegates, plus supers.

No Obama supporter should be worried about a MI/FL re-vote. In reality, we shouldn't even be worried about including the numbers as they stand as long as Obama gets the uncommitted votes in MI. He's far enough ahead at this point to withstand it, assuming no self-destruction from now till June 3.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

103. John Edwards has a strong claim to some of those uncommitted votes

Blue collar union state, and Edwards was very much in the race at the time... no reason to assume that all uncommitted votes were Obama votes.

Some of those uncomitteds were Edwards people who would now be Hillary people, of demographically similar Ohio tells us anything.

These sort of issues are why I reject anything that depends in any way on the previous voting. If those contests didn't count then they didn't count 100%.

Only a clean new process can satisfy minimal standards of one man, one vote in an orderly, pre-defined contest open to all.

[goodgd_yall]

42. I agree with you on the situation with Michigan too

It needs to be redone. Florida really can be taken as is, except that, if that is done, there should be something done to discourage Florida legislators from defying DNC rules. Your suggestion of stripping a portion of the delegates sounds to me like a good solution. I think just having to shell out money for a revote in Michigan is punishment enough for that state.

[TheDoorbellRang]

44. They should strip ALL the super delegates in FL and MI

since it was the SD's in both states that created this whole mess.

The pledged delegate problem is trickier, but if they stripped all the SD's and explained why, I think it would help direct the voters' anger to the culprits responsible.

[Birthmark]

65. The DNC does have a right to make it's own rules

But it also has an obligation to make sure that those rules are fair and appropriate. It may have the power to make unfair rules, but it doesn't have the right. I do agree that some penalty is called for.

I largely agree with you. Though for FL, I would disqualify ALL super-delegates and leave the elected delegates, although I could live with your suggestion.

MI is just a mess. But any resolution should be fair to the People first, the DNC and candidates second. Basically, whatever the People of MI will accept is fine with me. It's their representation and I'm not going to tell them what to do.

[Kokonoe]

19. The illegitimate primary did not count.

There are NO restrictions on a real primary, and the Obama campaign does not object to any format.

How can Clinton complain about disenfranchising anyone, when she is blocking the road.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

26. If she is blocking the road it makes no sense.

She must know the bogus delegations are not going to be seated, because the credentials committee will be majority Obama supporters.

So it sounds like she is taking a certain line in a negotiation.

[goodgd_yall]

49. She's open to a revote.

Somehow only the first half of what she said seems to be getting repeated. This is what she said:

“In my view, there are two options: honour the results or hold new primary
elections,” said Mrs Clinton yesterday. “We have a basic obligation to make
sure that every vote in America counts.”

[goodgd_yall]

45. How is she blocking the road?

She said either seat them or have a revote. In other words, do not disenfranchise the MI and FL voters. I disagree with seating the MI delegates based on the January vote though, because neither Obama nor Edwards was on the ballot.

Obama has voiced reservations about the mail-in vote. Mail-in voting seems like the best solution---cheaper than a regular primary and more accessible than a caucus.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

46. it's too easy for old ladies to vote by mail

[goodgd_yall]

51. God, no!

got to suppress that elderly vote. :sarcasm:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

121. !

[Kokonoe]

78. Ok, I thought it was only Hillary, everyone needs to agree on a solution

It doesn't matter how they do it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

81. Agreed.

[lmbradford]

94. I'll say it again....

Obama was informed that the LAW in FL does not allow mail in votes. They would have to change the law and BOTH campaigns realized that it would be a bad idea because of time restraints.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

101. That law does not apply to something run by a political party

That's a state election law.

The Dem party of FL can, however, do a mail-in primary on their own, which is what the proposal is.

Parties are free to set things up however they want. That's why we have caucuses, which would be clearly illegal under voting rights and civil rights laws if they elected people to public office.

[roseBudd]

24. Except she was the only one on the ballot in MI, so no one in MI could vote for any other Dem

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. Of course the MI and FL "results" are meaningless.

Those were not valid primaries.

But they need to hold valid primaries. The alternative is a nominee chosen by only 90% of the country, which isn't good.

[roseBudd]

30. My point is the fact Hillary wants to count MI shows she doesn't care about fair or voters

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

36. Yes, but it's not about her.

Her saying she wants MI seated as is is like saying she'd like some cake. We'd all like a lot of things.

But the question of what happens with FL and MI is bigger than the candidates. It's 10% of the country whose voice should be part of the decision the convention (which will probably be Obama)

If Obama wins a narrow vote at the convention without MI and FL the Clinton people will feel robbed, just as the Obama people will feel robbed if the super-delegates pick Hillary.

We are in a party unity crisis, and it's very, very bad for the whole Party if anyone on either side has reason to feel the nominee is somehow not legitimate.

[spoony]

32. Well, no, she wasn't, since I

was able to vote for Kucinich.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

43. Yeah, I feel bad for Kucinich every time someone says she ran "unopposed"

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

117. .

[high density]

25. Well the fact is 48 states could play by the rules

While 2 couldn't. The states only have themselves to blame.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

29. Real people vote in primaries, not states.

[high density]

48. And what you have said means... absolutely nothing?

:crazy:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

50. "The states only have themselves to blame."

"The states" are not people.

You say States do bad, and individual voters should be punished for it.

Makes no sense to me.

[high density]

54. Umm, most states I know are made up of people

and those people elect other people to represent them. By "states" I mean the people in those states... Which is pretty obvious to everybody but you I guess.

[PseudoIntellect]

84. It seems by your reasoning that all the millions of people in those states willingly broke the rules

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

87. Collective punishment. It worked so well in Iraq, let's try it in Michigan

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

34. They're called "RULES" for a reason - they need to be followed.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

38. There is no rule against FL and MI holding proper primaries.

There is a rule against any delegates chosen in fake primaries being seated.

Those fake primaries meant nothing, and must be ignored.

That's why we need to hold proper primaries there.

[goodgd_yall]

39. I'm so sick of this rigid "It's the rules" bs

It sounds so Republican.

You have to look at the bigger picture. Voters DID NOT break the rules. We need to decide on our Democratic nominee in a democratic manner. Leaving out 2 of the largest---electoral vote-wise---states is foolhardy and undemocratic. Foolhardy to snub states we need to have on our side in November.

[Birthmark]

71. So...

...if the rule was "no people of Scottish descent can vote"...that would be okay? (I suspect I know your answer.)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

72. "Ach! Ah hate these rrrules!"

[Birthmark]

75. "Willie hears ya. Willie don't care."

Had to be the greatest lines ever uttered on television. :)

[Johnny__Motown]

35. I live in Michigan and I disagree,

The rules need to be followed. If FL and MI can hold "redo' elections within the rules I am all for it, if not then screw it.

My only other suggestion would be to remove only half the delegates instead of all of them. That way the delegates could be seated and have a say but the impact would be minimal.

[hayu_lol]

55. One thing that keeps coming up in threads like this one...

"Obama and Edwards were not on the Michigan ballot."

Obama and Edwards together decided--for their own political purposes--to pull their names off the Michigan ballot. Together they contributed to the mess that is Michigan now.

Hillary was not the only candidate who remained on the ballot. Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich certainly stayed on the ballot along with Hillary. Kucinich even campaigned in the state.

Had Obama and Edwards stayed on the ballot they would have legitimate vote totals to show. Neither was required to remove their names from that ballot.

[yardwork]

69. I thought that they took their names off the ballot because the Party requested it?

Look, nobody is going to convince me that the FL and MI primaries represent the voters. I don't understand what happened - I don't know the details. There were screwups along the way, clearly.

If the outcome were different - if Obama had won FL and it was Hillary's name off the ballot in MI -we would be having the same exact conversation here on DU only most of the folks arguing on one side would be the arguing the other.

It's kind of hilarious to think about, actually. Many Hillary supporters would be hollering "no illegal primary delegates can be seated!!" and many Obama supporters would be saying, "Seat the delegates already, they're ours, we won them fair and square!" Sort of like playing opposite day.

[Blondiegrrl]

73. Florida and Michigan broke the rules.

What part of that do you not understand?

If the residents of those two states have a problem, then they can blame their respective governors and legislators for fucking them over.

[VotesForWomen]

91. waaaaah! who cares if we lose the GE? just as long as O's the nominee.. nt

[DemVet]

74. Tell that to Howard Dean...he can't , or won't , understand that.

Uncle Howie got us all in a pickle and will look FOOLISH if we purposefully disenfranchise 10% of the American people.

[exsoccermom]

77. ARGH

Will you people listen for a second. The primaries in those two states are valid for the selection of Federal (Congress), State, and Local (Counties, incorporated places, school boards, and minor civil divisions (in Michigan). That's hundreds and hundreds of offices that are appearing on the ballots in November. They are VERY legal primaries for all offices except the President of the USA. The participation of voters in these primaries was much greater that the 2000 and 2004 primary (in Florida, the numbers were approaching the General Election). The DNC just wanted to keep Iowa and New Hampshire as first states in the selection process. It costs money to conduct a primary. The state, not the national party, pays that bill. Florida and Michigan paid for the primaries that selected the hundreds (thousands) of people who will appear on the general election ballot. The qualification requirements for the delegates have been met. The only problem is the frivolous requirement for dates of the primary put forth by the DNC.

[DemVet]

118. Thanks for the insight...I didn't know the facts you stated. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

79. Obama Opposes Revote In Michigan (talk left)

Obama Opposes Revote In Michigan
By Big Tent Democrat
Posted on Wed Mar 12, 2008

So say his MI Campaign Co-Chair:

State Sen. Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit, said a mail-in caucus "is clearly the wrong path. "We don't like it one bit," Hunter said. "It disenfranchises people who need to participate and there are many questions with regard to security."

Hunter said the Obama campaign will accept nothing but a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates between Clinton and Obama, who removed his name from the January ballot here in protest of the early date.

(Emphasis supplied.) I guess the Obama MI Co-Chair does not agree with Obama's previously held positive view on mail in voting, agreeing instead with Obama's newly minted distaste for mail in voting. Oh and a 50-50 split is the ONLY thing Obama will accept in Michigan. Hope we are clear now on how Obama feels about the will of the people of Florida and Michigan.


http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/12/17353/7404

[yewberry]

88. The problem for me is that I'm NOT missing the facts about FL and MI.

The reality is that we have two completely separate issues to try to manage here, but they are intertwined.

1. The leapfrogging by MI and FL and the consequences
2. The candidates' approach and solutions to the consequences

They're separate. Many people have been talking about this for a long time, and unfortunately, some whose opinions on the first subject are being misinterpreted as applying to the second issue.

My opinions on this are essentially based in the problems of the first set of circumstances. Regardless of which candidate would benefit (and please feel free to search my posts from last summer, before this became a two-candidate race), I have real problems with Florida's and Michigan's actions.

The folks who are responsible for moving their state primaries were banking on us having this conversation. They knew full well that their actions would cause huge problems for very large numbers of their own Dem voters, and they did it anyway, believing that no one would DARE call their bluff. The DNC called their bluff, though, and now we have to deal with the consequences.

Honestly, I'm deeply uncomfortable with disenfranchising voters. At the same time, as a voter in a state that followed the calendar that all of the states agreed to, I loathe the idea of FL & MI forcing their whims on the rest of and essentially telling every voter in every other state that we're not as important as they are.

The state FL & MI Dem parties disenfranchised their own constituencies in an attempt to blackmail the Dem voters in every other state because of their numbers. It's that simple and that horrible. It's not just a question of numbers or shit-canning the twenty smallest states. The DNC is trying to stand up for the Dem voters in the rest of the country that FL & MI parties are trying to bully.

Please understand--we (at least from my point of view) want FL & MI voters to have their say. At the same time, please tell me how that can happen without allowing the FL & MI parties to shove the rest of us around and tell us that we matter less than they do. Frankly, those state parties have been incredibly insulting to the rest of us and the sense of entitlement that they've displayed has made it hard to really want to work with them.

So, how am I supposed to feel?

I have to support Dean and hope that the FL & MI parties will work with the DNC to make their voters heard without ignoring the voters in other states. Fl & MI should acknowledge that this is a real issue for voters in other states; maybe then we can all move forward.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

93. Good thoughtful post.

Regarding penalties... it is hard to say what's appropriate, but I believe the Democratic Party should aspire to conducting our elections within the general framework of voters rights in general elections.

So I cannot countenance reducing the worth of any individual's franchise. One man, one vote is too fundamental a concept to permit seating half the delegates, or disenfranchising a state entirely.

And what's even the point? The process is supposed to pick the best candidate, so any discounting of voters is saying "let's do an inferior job of picking a candidate. That will show those guys."

It's cutting off our nose to spite our face. In the old days, nominations were a kind of spoils system, but after 2000 I think we have to highlight the democratic nature of the process.

People vote in primaries largely on electability, and people in MI and FL know a lot more about who their neighbors are likely to vote for than I do. I want their input.

I admit I don't know what meaningful penalties there are that do not interfere with full national representation.

But I cannot see my way clear to anything that devalues representation as punishment. The Republican solution of counting the outlaw states 50% appalled me when I heard about it. Much too close to the 3/5 of a man standard for counting slaves.

I hope that my OP at least demonstrates the magnitude of the problem. If those 20 small states all broke the rules and were all punished by not being seated it would be an intolerable situation, but many of us seem okay with discounting the same number of voters because it is "only" two states.

[lmbradford]

89. Didn't anyone ever tell you.....

size doesn't matter.....Ha Ha....sorry, just had to say it.

Actually, it is the "play by the rules" thing that seems to be a problem for politicians and since they represent us, we get screwed. Didn't you ever notice that before now?

Personally, I'd would like for the "punishment" to actually take place so that the "crime" is not committed again and again. People usually have to pay the price for their wrong doing.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

96. I'd agree if punishing them did not punish us all

I see a very real possibility of a nomination race so close that the outcome will be tainted.

Nobody would have proposed these punishments if they thought they might be decisive. Usually the nominee is decided in the primaries, everyone else drops out, and the voting delegates are a mere formality, so it wouldn't matter which states sent which delegates.

By "punish us all" I do not mean by picking one candidate or another. I believe the process is supposed to pick the best candidate, and thus limiting representation limits the quality of the process that is supposed to benefit the Party.

I think Obama wins in every scenario, and whether I like him or not I want his nomination to be as broad-based and uncontroversial as possible. We don't need more divisions.

[VotesForWomen]

90. Who needs FL and MI? screw 'em. O's going to win with UT and WY!! nt

[superkia]

105. What did all 28 million do and say before this happened to...

their states? If they didn't hold their own representatives accountable to make sure that they did count, it makes no sense to cry foul now that one candidate needs them? If they cant completely do the process over so EVERY one of the 28 million have a chance to be counted, whats the purpose of trying to change the rules?

If my state would have said that they were going to do something that would make my vote not count, I would have been pissed and tying up their phone lines as well as filling up their email inbox. No way in hell I would have sat back and let another republican or republican lite into office, I want my vote to count.

I believe this was all done as a strategy and the American people will fall for it. Divide and conquer and we all lose.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

109. Do you think lazy people deserve a vote? How about ignorant people?

There are things a person cannot legally contract to do in America. You cannot sign a contract to be a slave. And you cannot sign a contract to give away your franchise.

Blaming individuals for not doing enough to preserve their franchise misses the point. The franchise is sacred. One person, one vote.

There cannot be a situation where anyone "deserves" to lose their vote.

(I believe disenfranchising felons is unconstitutional, so I can hardly support disenfranchising people for not being sufficiently politically active.)

[superkia]

113. Again, what did they do or say? Are you telling me that those...

who live in those states are ignorant and lazy? Was that your answer to my question? Also, I will state it again since you only responded to a portion of my reply:

"If they cant completely do the process over so EVERY one of the 28 million have a chance to be counted, whats the purpose of trying to change the rules?"

You obviously haven't paid much attention to our country of late, nothing is scared anymore, not even the constitution.



I believe they should do the whole process over so that EVERY one of them has a chance to be counted, changing the rules after the fact and seating the delegates only gives an advantage to a certain candidate and still disenfranchises the people. I have made this clear in several replies here on DU.

If you live in one of those states and you are telling me that you are all ignorant and lazy, maybe you have a better view because you live there...I don't. If thats the case, you must come together and help each other because this system wont be coming to help you.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

115. You seem to be blaming the people for sitting back rather than burning up the phone-lines

Hence my question about laziness or ignorance.

I have never proposed seating any fruit of the two tainted elections. If the OP wasn't clear enough on that, it's my fault. I support proper, sanctioned primaries in both states and nothing less.

I apologize for misunderstanding you.

It is safe to say that 90% of both states had no idea what was going on. They show up to vote every four years with the assumption it will be counted, and that's as far as it goes. And they cannot lose their franchise, at least not properly, because they did not act to preserve it. No more than they can properly lose their freedom of religion.

(They might, as a practical matter, lose their freedom of religion through indifference, but it can never be proper.)

People who are not politically active can be said to be to blame when their property tax is raised by politicians they voted for. Representative government does have consequences. But losing your franchise is not like tax rates, or whether there's a stop-light at Pine and Main.

The franchise is an individual right, not a government policy.

And I think the Democratic party should adhere to American civil rights and voting rights ideals in our proceedings, even though we are not legally required to. We are the Democratic Party, after all.

My point was that a person cannot agree to lose their franchise with their eyes wide open, so I am not comfortable with arguments about how people were too passive.

And the question of whether a candidate benefits, or which one, is so irrelevant to the issue I cannot believe anyone even mentions it.

Florida 2000 settled my thinking on many issues, and I do not have the option of rejecting everything I said in 2000 because circumstances are different.

[hfojvt]

110. I see your point, and I'll raise you

add up the total of Democratic voters in the two groups and it's even more lopsided. Here are the totals of votes for Kerry/Edwards in 2004

Michigan - 2, 479, 183
Florida - 3, 583,544
total - 6,062,727


Kansas - 434, 993
Utah - 241, 199
Wyoming - 70, 776
SD - 149, 244
Rhode Island - 259,760
WV - 326,541
Vermont - 184,067
ND - 111, 052
NH - 340,511
Nevada - 397,190
Nebraska - 254,328
Montana - 173,710
Maine - 396,842
NM - 370,942
Hawaii - 231,708
Delaware - 200,152
DC - 202,970
Alaska - 111,025
Arkansas - 469,953
Idaho - 181,098

total - 5,108,091

While I am guessing the populations of the two groups are about equal, the two large states have almost a million more Democratic voters than the twenty smallest.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

114. So you can add Mississppi and one more state to the list

Mississippi (the next state up in population) was borderline on my list based on total population, but would be easily included on your list of Democratic turnout, with room to spare for the next state too.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

119. Kick because the first step is admitting you have a problem