Do overs. Michigan and Florida remind me of two year olds.

[Warren Stupidity]

First they can't play by the rules and demand to be first. That way they can have a big primary event in their states, overwhelming the small states of New Hampshire and Iowa. They are clearly warned that doing so will result in getting their delegates disqualified. They proceed anyway. Their delegates get disqualified.

Then it turns out that the race ends up neck and neck and guess what? Michigan and Florida now want to hold revotes at the end of the primary season. Now they are demanding, essentially, to be last, and to once again have a disproportionate say in the outcome. What a pile of crap. Infantile behavior. The rules were the rules. Everyone understood what the rules were. Florida understood, Michigan understood, the candidates understood. This is not a golf game. There are no mulligans, nor should there be any gimmes.

Add the votes up from the qualified caucuses and primaries, let the stupid super delegates do their thing, and declare a winner. Enough is enough.

[On the Road]

1. I Agree on the Initial Decision to Move Up the Date

and I suspect both states are regretting that decision now.

But the ones not having their votes counted are not the same ones who made the decision. That's why a do-over is preferable.

[latinolatteliberal]

7. political theory

Aren't the representatives, by virtue of being elected, carrying out the will of the people of MI and FL?

Isn't that what gives legitimacy to our federal republic? Why should their decision not be binding for the people who put them in positions of power in the first place?

As a corollary, isn't the appropriate response to vote them out of office?

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. "They" meaning we the people, in this case me? Or they as "them".

[Warren Stupidity]

3. The state legislatures that are doing this.

I am sorry about the people in Michigan and Florida who got screwed over by their legislatures. You should vote those folks out.

[peace frog]

4. My goodness, you make it sound sooooooo simple

"You should vote those folks out." Easier said than done, pal. Try living in Jeb-Bush-fucked-my-state-up-for-the-next-decade Florida for a few years, then we'll talk. Otherwise, you are in no position to lecture Florida voters.

[movonne]

16. Who put Jeb in...now Florida is paying for if and big...

[peace frog]

19. No shit, Sherlock

Like I said, try living in a thoroughly Bush-fucked state for a while. You won't like it any more than we do, nor will you find it any easier to reverse the damage.

[40ozDonkey]

33. What?

I'm voting against Jeremy Ring (D) over this. He wanted to "give us a bigger voice", he cut my throat to do it. I didn't want the primary moved forward. What are you talking about Jeb for? Republicans wanted to do it but the person who introduced this piece of legislation was Ring, he supported it, then backtracked and blamed Republicans when he was called on it, now he supports it again.

Every Democrat but one in Florida voted in favor of this debacle.

So yeah, VOTE THEM OUT.

[peace frog]

41. Well you just GO BOY!!!!!!!!!

Bet you're hoping your vote against Ring will count, aren't ya. Unlike my vote in the Florida Democratic primary.

[ScreamingMeemie]

5. I tried to...and was told I should be banned for that in 2006.

I guess it's a lose/lose situation.

[Birthmark]

6. When are you going to admit...

...that the penalty is entirely up to the DNC?

Obviously, the DNC can't let the flagrant disregard for the rules by the FL State Legislature stand, but that doesn't automatically mean that the DNC must disenfranchise 1.75 million Florida Democrats. That was entirely their decision, not the State Legislature's.

And anyone who thinks that people standing up for their right to have their vote count is acting childish is just plain not living in the real world. I doubt anyone reading this board would lightly give up their vote. Especially if that vote was being disregarded based on the actions of *others*.

[Smelting Pot]

8. Why did 1.75 million Florida Democrats...

vote in a primary they were explicitly told WOULD NOT COUNT? I have never understood that.

[latinolatteliberal]

10. other issues on the ballot that day

something about property taxes, I think. that will get property owners to vote, for sure.

[Smelting Pot]

11. That makes sense.

Thanks for the info. I guess that means all the Democrats who rent stayed home?

[Birthmark]

15. Pretty doubtful

Florida had a record turnout. It was 233% the turnout we had in 2004.

[Smelting Pot]

21. And WHY was there a record turnout...

for a primary that was NOT GOING TO COUNT?

[Birthmark]

23. I think I explained that as well as I can in my other post.

That's when the State Legislature said the vote would be held.

[Birthmark]

14. Because that's what you do in that situation

It's the only chance we HAD to vote. What would you do, sit around waiting on the off-chance that the idiots that got you into this mess would come to some new wisdom...and that whatever they decided would be approved by the Republican State Legislature?

I think a lot of you haven't thought about this in a detailed, logical way. I encourage you to do so. Think about what you think YOU could have or would have done. And be honest.

[Smelting Pot]

24. So now anyone who takes the DNC at its word...

is not logical? As compared to the "record number of voters" who participated?

I am getting the distinct impression that Florida voters were told, "Go ahead and vote. We (the Florida Democratic Party) will make sure you are counted (even though we totally lied to the DNC about whether we tried to fight the Republicans on this date thing.)"

So millions of voters went to vote on the ASSUMPTION that what the DNC told them (your primary will not count) was either a lie or would not stand?!?

Sorry, that looks like millions of voters refused to think about this "in a detailed, logical way." Now that you have the benefit of hindsight, I suggest you do so now.

[Birthmark]

27. LOL! No, you are not at all being logical.

The FDP called 1.75 million people and told them to vote anyway? Yeah, that's logical. Even if they had, the majority of voters (probably the VAST majority) would have said something along the lines of, "What the hell are you talking about?"

People went to the polls because that's when the polls were open. How many voters have time to watch the soap opera between the DNC and the FDP? What would you have done? Skipped voting? Doesn't look like many, if any, did that. And you probably wouldn't have either. Why would you? How many "re-votes" have their been in American history? Had you even *heard* the term until recently? No, you'd have voted...and you'd probably be doing what I'm doing now.

Now, if the DNC wants to piss off FL Dems and hand the State to McCain...well, that's the decision the DNC has to make. I think it's pretty stupid AND unfair. So do a lot of other people.

[Smelting Pot]

30. So, let me get this straight...

If the Miami Dolphins and the New York Giants scheduled an exhibition game this summer, outside the normal football schedule, and the NFL told them that they could play the game but the results would not count towards the regular season, then after the game the winner decides that since it was so well attended it SHOULD count, you think that would be fair?!? In order to not "disenfranchise" all those fans who attended in record numbers, of course.

Please tell me your logic centers in your brain work better than this!

[Birthmark]

36. Apparently, your logic centers aren't working well.

If they were, you'd realize what a miserable analogy that is. It doesn't comport with the facts at all. In fact, I'm not sure it makes the slightest bit of sense.

You seem to think that people are going to say, "Oh, the DNC says the vote won't count, so we shouldn't vote." That's lunacy. Some of us have a long tradition of voting. We vote when the polls are open. We aren't going to sit home because of some squabble State Party leaders and National Party leaders have.

I'm amazed that the Republicans managed to be more democratic than the alleged Democratic Party in precisely the same circumstances. It's kind of stunning really. The "liberal" party punishing the innocent.

[Smelting Pot]

42. Apparently, you are an automaton.

"We vote when the polls are open." So, you vote out of habit?

If you, or your state's democrats, would be honest, you expected the DNC to back down. You thought that your delegates would be seated even after being told that they would not be. If YOUR logic center was working at all, you would see that that was impossible for the DNC. If they seat Florida, if they back down, the next primary season will start in the Autumn of 2011! Every state will jockey for position, moving the date up further and further. I know it sucks, but your state is being used as an example to all the others. If that does not sit well with you, you can either work to remove the rule-breakers, or you can work to remove the rule-makers. Your choice will say more about you than it will about those you side with.

[Birthmark]

45. Vote out of habit?

You appear to be babbling now. People vote when the polls are open. You see, they won't let you vote if you try it when the polls are closed. It's a state law thingy.

Your whining about Autumn 2011 is not my problem. I don't care one iota. What is my problem is I voted and the Party that wants my vote in November has disenfranchised me. Their chances of getting my vote in November are zero if they don't count my vote from January. So, if you and the DNC think it's worth conceding FL in November without a fight, on the basis of what *might* happen four years from now...well, all I can say is good luck with that. You'll need it.

But I notice that you STILL haven't pointed out anything done wrong by the People of Florida.

[Smelting Pot]

47. Pure Arrogance

Maybe it's time for a "49 State Strategy."

:shrug:

[Birthmark]

49. So, there's no rule the People broke?

That must be the case since you have yet to respond to that. And since that is the case, then penalizing the People is clearly inappropriate. I wonder why anyone would be in favor of penalizing the innocent? It doesn't make sense on any level.

[reflection]

60. Whatever gets their attention is fine with me.

I'm sick of people who pick fights and then cry when they get popped in the nose.

[Birthmark]

62. Who you are sick of...

...hardly justifies your quasi-fascist adherence to unfair punishment for the innocent, though it might explain it.

[reflection]

65. You're right.

Who I am sick of justifies nothing. It is merely an opinion I hold. I do not base my views of what should happen on that opinion.

I base my views on a simple concept. No Rules = Anarchy = See you again in 4 years with the same problem, only with a lot more states claiming a precedent was set in 2008.

There is no other choice except to uphold the process, legitimize the primary election, and serve notice to the next state that tries to swagger their way to the front of the line, daring someone to ddo something about it, laughing all the way.

(brushing aside the terms quasi-fascist, unfair, and innocent, as none of them have any place in this discussion.

[Birthmark]

68. But there are other choices.

I've offered several.

The Repubs actually enacted one. A solution that I would find acceptable and would protect the DNC's precious bodily fluids. So the assertion that disenfranchisement is the only option is clearly wrong.

[WilyWondr]

51. Representative Democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principles of popular sovereignty by the people's representatives. The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives—i.e., not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.

Please stop with your repeated implication that the people that voted in the beauty contest were somehow different than the ones that changed the date of the primary. Their representatives changed the date with the approval of their constituents. If they did not like what their representatives were doing they should have contacted their representatives to express their opinion. If they felt that the representatives were not following their wishes they should be having recall elections.

Have you heard of any of those being planned?
Me neither. Why do you think that is?

[Birthmark]

58. Complete nonsense.

It is nice try. Unfortunately, it happens to not be true. The Republican Legislature changed the date for the primary. Even had every single Democrat in the FL Legislature voted against it, the primary date would *still* have been moved.

And that's where the inappropriate response comes in. The DNC isn't disenfranchising the People of Florida because the State Dems moved the date of the Primary. They are disenfranchising the People of Florida because the Democrats in the State Legislature voted for it...despite the fact that realistically it made no difference which way they voted. It's small, unfair, ridiculous, and counterproductive.

[reflection]

72. I get where you're coming from

but I believe your "might happen four years from now" should read "will definitely happen in the future". To argue otherwise seems very disingenuous.

Fact: One of the later states will want to be in the first round and will pull the same stunt, if the behavior is rewarded or unfairly accepted. This is long term thinking. Autumn 2011 *will* be your problem and the rest of us, again, if this juvenile crap is permitted, because we will be flinging millions of dollars at each other when we should be flinging it at the Republican.

[40ozDonkey]

39. Many more people would have voted

if it counted. There was only one issue I was interested in on the ballot, and a friend of mine convinced me it was a wrong decision, so I went in to work instead. I had a lot to do that week.
I'm not alone. It's not like it's a national holiday to vote, so if I'm taking a workday off, it better matter to me.
I don't have the cash, time, or inclination for token appearances.

If you think 1.75 million is record breaking, you would've been really impressed by a vote that's legitimate. :D

[Birthmark]

44. A "legitimate" vote?

1. No offense, but I have no way of verifying your story, so I can't accept it as evidence of anything.

2. The increase in FL's turnout from 2004 was comparative with the increase in other states, so the argument that large numbers stayed home is pretty weak.

3. I wouldn't be against a "supplemental" vote for people who didn't vote in January...as long as the vote I cast isn't thrown out. That would have the added bonus of allowing the DNC to say that technically FL wasn't in violation since all the votes weren't in until that supplemental balloting was over.

I think that there is an important principle involved here, though. That principle is that when people vote, it should count. Period.

[40ozDonkey]

73. Yeah, "legitimate".

1) I hope you hold everyone to such scrutiny, I won't hold my breath.

2) Source?

3) You can do whatever you want, provided it doesn't come out of taxpayers or pretend the results are well represented "as-is".

There is an important principle here. When people break the rules, they're punished. The ends don't justify the means.

[reflection]

18. "disenfranchise"

I respectfully submit that the word "disenfranchise" does not apply. Or perhaps it is being tossed around carelessly.

Not being able to vote in a *primary*, to me, is not disenfranchisement. A party is a group of like-minded people who agree on a particular framework to advance a candidate who (presumably) reflects that party's views. As with any club, if you thumb your nose at the rules or otherwise act inappropriately, it is entirely within that party's right to remove you for that cycle.

I hate to say it, but if FL and MI end up not having a say in who the Democratic nominee is, it's really not going to be that big of a deal. They will still have the chance to vote in the GE.

And if the voters feel that muscling their way to the front of the line was so important that it was worth sitting one out, then they can reward their representatives with another term. If not, they'll vote them out. But FL and MI have duly earned the scorn they are receiving, and if they cannot find a way to resolve it within the framework that existed when this campaign started, then they need to be sent to sit in the corner for awhile.

(edited for spelling)

[Birthmark]

26. No, it is precisely the word...

...since the penalty is being applied to people who did absolutely *nothing* wrong. The FL superdelegates wouldn't be disenfranchised, they would be rightfully penalized for their actions. But the People are most definitely being disenfranchised.

[reflection]

28. I disagree.

The people are being represented. The quality of that representation is another matter. Now, if they were kept from voting in the GE, *then*, they would have a pretty big reason to be upset.

[Birthmark]

31. Well, the dictionary says you're wrong.

But I doubt that that matters much. Enjoy McCain's Presidency.

[reflection]

34. Send that dictionary to FL

and tell them to look up three words:

1) rules
2) disregard
3) consequence

And no, I likely will not enjoy a McCain presidency. Not at all. But I don't want to go through this crap every 4 years. Dean is right.

[Birthmark]

37. Howzabout I just post it?

"disenfranchisement
One entry found.

disenfranchise

Main Entry:
dis·en·fran·chise Listen to the pronunciation of disenfranchise
Pronunciation:
\ˌdis-in-ˈfran-ˌchīz\
Function:
transitive verb
Date: 1664

: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote
— dis·en·fran·chise·ment Listen to the pronunciation of disenfranchisement \-ˌchīz-mənt, -chəz-\ noun"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchisement

And please, feel free to point out the "rule" that the People of Florida broke. Good luck with that.

[reflection]

40. They weren't deprived.

They gave it away willingly. In fact, they dared the DNC to accept their forfeit. Surely we can agree on that. Have you not read madfloridian's journal by now?

[Birthmark]

48. No, we don't agree...

...unless you are talking about the FDP leadership. I have stated on this board for weeks that some response to the FDP needs to be made by the DNC. Stripping the superdelegates looks like one appropriate response, and there are probably others with which I would not only agree but fully support.

However, disenfranchising 1.75 million innocent people is not the proper response by the DNC. Even the Repubs knew that!

[reflection]

53. Negative.

The people aren't paying attention. And if they don't share in the pain, we'll be right back here again.

The superdelegates buy, sell and trade their votes like commodities anyway. To them it is just another chip to bargain with.

If the FL people are not allowed to participate, perhaps they will channel their outrage in a constructive manner and FIX the broken, pathetic political machine they are driving. Because right now, they're broken down in the passing lane, and the rest of us need to get by and get on with the serious business of nominating a candidate.

Find a solution within the DNC rules, and everyone will be happy (except those who wished to subvert those rules in the first place).

[Birthmark]

61. You're not making sense again?

What is it the People were supposed to pay attention to? Were we supposed to be psychic and know that the clowns being elected were going to vote to move the primary date? lol

And of course, I happen to live in an area with NO Democratic representation in the Legislature whatsoever.

What I'm really hearing here is DNC Rules > People's right to vote. Now if that's the case, you can expect the Democratic Party to shrink in size substantially. That's not the Party most of us thought we were getting into and not the kind of Party most of us want to be associated with.

[reflection]

64. And that's another consequence.

The people either knew their leaders were strongarming the DNC or were not plugged in to the happenings of their own party. This slow, tortured dance has played out for months. FL expected the DNC to cave. The DNC (to date) has not.

Florida voters threatening to leave the party and sit out the GE is the same as my daughter storming to her room, slamming her door and sulking when she is punished. Eventually she comes out and realizes she's not going to throw a fit and get me to capitulate.

If this election is as important as we all agree it is, FL voters will accept their punishment, coalesce around the final nominee, whoever it is, and realize they can't pull the same shenanigans again. That is, if they have the resolve to quit pointing fingers and get to work crafting a viable solution that does not favor one candidate over another.

[Birthmark]

69. I have no problem accepting punishment...

...that I've earned. I'm pretty bad about taking someone else's; particularly when that person's actions really didn't matter to the outcome of anything to begin with.

I do find the whole "childish" angle pretty humorous, though. Yes, only a child would protest being disenfranchised! :rofl:

And you can take it to the bank that if Florida's Democrats are disenfranchised, I'll sit out the GE. I haven't missed a National or State election since I began voting in 1976, but I will if I have to.

[reflection]

71. I respect your opinion.

And I would hope that some people who hold more sway than you or I are able to solve this fairly. And that you are able to count somehow. That would be the desirable outcome.

And I can only imagine your frustration. You're here, you're plugged in, and a eager, complicit group of local Dems threw the electorate slowly under the bus. Not only did they toe the line of the Republicans, they didn't even whimper as they rolled over. Shameless. So I appreciate *you*, for what it is worth. Just not some party members around you. And I am sorry our views differ so profoundly on this.

(Edited for grammar, spelling, all-around stupidity and fat-fingering)

[Smelting Pot]

29. But it's not a "right or wrong" issue!

Look, I'm sorry that you believe that your state is SO important to the Democratic Party that you voted in a primary, that YOU KNEW WOULD NOT COUNT, assuming that the DNC would go back on their word to make sure you weren't somehow offended. But, the rules committee decided that, due to the duplicitous nature of your Democrats, your delegates would not be seated. If you feel disenfranchised, start blaming the people who put you in this position: YOUR FLORIDA DEMOCRATS!

Point #1: They were warned not to move the date up or there would be consequences. The date was moved up, the Florida Democrats voted WITH THE REPUBLICANS 115 to 1, and there were consequences. Even a token resistance would have softened the penalty.

Point #2: After their collusion with the Republicans, the Florida delegation tried to lie to the DNC that they had resisted "but those mean Republicans forced this on us!" BULLSHIT! They were caught by the transcripts from the floor of the Florida legislature.

Point #3: Even after all of that, back in August the DNC offered to help pay for a caucus that would allow Florida to seat all of its delegates. That offer was REJECTED.

Bottom line: YOUR FLORIDA DEMOCRATS AND THEIR ARROGANCE ARE THE ONLY ONES TO BLAME!

[Birthmark]

32. See? You're telling yourself stories.

That's alright, of course, you're perfectly free to tell yourself anything you want. But believing the stories you make up is poor form...at best.

1. So what does that have to do with the People of Florida?

2. What does that have to do with the People of Florida?

3. That would have been disenfranchisement. It is unacceptable. Besides, it might well be out of even the FDP's hands, depending upon whether or not the Legislature (which is Republican) would have to allow it.

You have plenty of nothing to justify removing the votes of 1.75 million Florida Democrats.

However, you have an iron-clad case for depriving FL of its super-delegates. I will back that 100% since they are the people largely responsible for starting this mess.

Blaming the People, though, is completely dishonest and can't be justified.

[Smelting Pot]

35. "Strawmen" by Birthmark

It's poor form to not obey the rules of a contest and, after being told that ignoring said rules voids the results of the contest, have the contest and then expect the flawed results to stand!

And the bullshit that somehow I am "blaming the people" is worse than fallacious, it is a strawman argument at its worst

[Birthmark]

38. You're running away.

I understand why. You don't have a leg to stand on.

You can't answer the questions I asked. Yelling "strawman" (which is a term you must be unfamiliar with) isn't a response. It is an assertion.

But let me rub it in some more.

It is a fact that the People of Florida were in no way responsible for the decision to move the Primary.

It is a fact that the DNC *elected* to disenfranchise the People.

The conclusion is pretty easy to arrive at.

Unless you can tell us what rule the People broke.

[Smelting Pot]

46. I'm standing right here. Come get some!

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy in which you misrepresent your opponent's position then refute it, giving the appearance that the actual position of your opponent has been refuted."

That is exactly what you are doing. That and attempting in a feeble way to mock my intelligence. I generally put posters of your "quality" on ignore because having a discussion with them is not dissimilar to conversing with a brick wall!

Let me be clear: the people of Florida are caught in the middle of a power play started by the Florida Democratic Party. The FDP is playing games with your votes. Take your problems to them. The DNC is playing by the rules. Again, if you have a problem with the rules, work to change them BEFORE they are agreed to BY ALL PARTIES.

I think you might not understand what a "representational government" actually means. Maybe a little light reading or auditing a class at your local college would be helpful.

[Birthmark]

50. I've misrepresented nothing.

You simply cannot point to *any* infraction by the People of Florida.

Therefore, depriving the People of Florida representation is inappropriate. Yet you support disenfranchising them. Weird.

But, hey, you'll have plenty of time to gloat over your "victory" during President McCain's term. Enjoy!

[Smelting Pot]

57. You have misrepresented the nature of our democracy.

I am going to quote another reply to you from this same thread. I will continue to quote this until you understand it. It seems like that might take a while...

WilyWondr wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principles of popular sovereignty by the people's representatives. The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives—i.e., not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.


Please stop with your repeated implication that the people that voted in the beauty contest were somehow different than the ones that changed the date of the primary. Their representatives changed the date with the approval of their constituents. If they did not like what their representatives were doing they should have contacted their representatives to express their opinion. If they felt that the representatives were not following their wishes they should be having recall elections.

Have you heard of any of those being planned?
Me neither. Why do you think that is?

[Birthmark]

63. Why do I think that is?

Um, probably because there are no recall election provided under Florida Law. Other than that, it's a dandy idea! lol

[WilyWondr]

66. C'mon

http://www.stateofsunshine.com/2007/08/17/how-recall-elections-work/

1. Any member of the governing body of a municipality or charter county, hereinafter referred to in this section as “municipality,” may be removed from office by the electors of the municipality. (Hillsborough is a “charter county”, and now any time you see “municipality” below, it includes the county commission.)

2. A petition shall be prepared naming the person sought to be recalled and containing a statement of grounds for recall in not more than 200 words limited solely to the grounds specified in paragraph (b). (See # __ below)

3. If more than one member of the governing body is sought to be recalled, whether such member is elected by the electors of a district or by the electors of the municipality at-large, a separate recall petition shall be prepared for each member sought to be recalled.

4. In a municipality or district of 25,000 or more registered electors, the petition shall be signed by at least 1,000 electors or by 5 percent of the total number of registered electors of the municipality or district as of the preceding municipal election, whichever is greater.

(According to the Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections, there are more than 676,000 voters now, and 5% of that is almost 34,000 signatures to recall Norman and Blair. However, the “preceding election” was in 2006, so the applicable number is probably slightly less than that. In a district, it would be roughly 1/3rd of that number or around 11,500 - for Hagan and White)

5. Electors of the municipality or district making charges contained in the statement of grounds for recall and those signing the recall petition shall be designated as the “committee.” A specific person shall be designated in the petition as chair of the committee to act for the committee.

6. All signatures shall be obtained within a period of 30 days, and the petition shall be filed within 30 days after the date the first signature is obtained on the petition.

7.(b) The grounds for removal of elected municipal officials shall, for the purposes of this act, be limited to the following and must be contained in the petition:
1. Malfeasance;
2. Misfeasance;
3. Neglect of duty;
4. Drunkenness;
5. Incompetence;
6. Permanent inability to perform official duties; and
7. Conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude.

8. The petition shall be filed with the auditor or clerk of the municipality or charter county, or his or her equivalent, hereinafter referred to as clerk, by the person designated as chair of the committee, and, when the petition is filed, the clerk shall submit such petition to the county supervisor of elections who shall, within a period of not more than 30 days after the petition is filed with the supervisor, determine whether the petition contains the required valid signatures.

9. If it is determined that the petition has the required signatures, then the clerk shall at once serve upon the person sought to be recalled a certified copy of the petition. Within 5 days after service, the person sought to be recalled may file with the clerk a defensive statement of not more than 200 words.

10. The clerk shall, within 5 days, prepare a sufficient number of … copies of the recall petition and defensive statement, as well as the names, addresses, and oaths on the original petition, and deliver them to the person who has been designated as chair of the committee and take his or her receipt therefor. Such prepared copies shall be entitled “Recall Petition and Defense” and shall contain lines and spaces for signatures and printed names of registered electors, place of residence, election precinct number, and date of signing, together with oaths to be executed by the witnesses … . The clerk shall deliver forms sufficient to carry the signatures of 30 percent of the registered electors.

11. Upon receipt of the “Recall Petition and Defense,” the committee may circulate them to obtain the signatures of 15 percent of the electors. (101,000+ for county-wide, 34,000 or so for districts)

12. Within 60 days after delivery of the “Recall Petition and Defense” to the chair, the chair shall file with the clerk the “Recall Petition and Defense” which bears the signatures of electors.

13. The supervisor shall be paid by the persons or committee seeking verification the sum of 10 cents for each name checked.

14. In the absence of a resignation, the chief judge of the judicial circuit in which the municipality is located shall fix a day for holding a recall election for the removal of those not resigning.

or http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0100/ch0100.htm

[Smelting Pot]

67. Thank You!

:hi:

[Birthmark]

74. Do you not know what *municipal* means?

But I appreciate the effort you put in. Unfortunately, State Legislators aren't municipal or county office holders.

I'm well aware of municipal and county recall provisions, but they don't apply here. I guess I could have specified that we had no recall provisions for State office holders. But I thought that unnecessary since those were the folks under discussion.

[movonne]

20. Who going to pay for it...we toss millions of dollars around like it

is small change ... and again I'm trying to see how this could be done fairly and cheap...got a solution???

[beandoc]

9. Agreed

However, the Clinton campaign has done a pretty good job of framing the issue. Their opening offer is: count the results of the first vote. I've been lurking around here for a few days and don't feel the need to rehash why that isn't even close to a reasonable option. However, now by asking for a re-vote, they get to have the appearance of being reasonable and compromising, while the sticking-to-the-rules guy is just unreasonable.
Play to the fears of how we need to appease Michigan democrats to win the general, and here we are.
By the way, I live in Michigan and my Repub. co-worker became really excited about the idea of voting for Clinton (strategic vote for him) if there were a second primary, even though he already voted for a Repub in the first go-round. This raises the question who would get to vote in a quasi-re-do? Just democrats? Open to independents and repubs? You could make the argument that someone who voted for a repub would have crossed over for a Dem if they had the option and thought it would count. Conversely, an open primary opens the door for a lot of strategic voting with no republican to vote for. Thoughts?

[Forkboy]

12. The whole thing is a joke. We did "do overs" in the backyard playing ball.

Having to do over a primary makes us look like fucking incompetent asses, something we Dems are getting great at.

[Drachasor]

13. The WILL of the people should be heard

This is a democracy, and that means we should go to extra steps to make sure people are heard.

[harun]

55. People are heard in the GE, this is the primaries (n/t)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

17. Worse than two year olds!

[Lone_Wolf]

22. They should strip Florida and Michigan of their superdelegates...

Hold the new primary, but strip them of their super-delegates. The people have a right for their vote to count. Besides, the super-delegates were probably the ones responsible in the first place for moving up the primaries.

[harun]

56. I'll second that idea (n/t)

[SoonerPride]

25. Am I the only one tired of Florida screwing up elections????

Cue madfloridian to come yell at me.

[reflection]

43. I'm beyond tired of FL and their antics.

And I suspect a great deal of the rest of the country is also. It's the same justification I use to punish my daughters when they defy rules. If there is no consequence, they wil not learn. Same with FL. And we will be here again, four years later, except it will be some other state, and they will be crying "but you didn't do any thing to Florida!" It sets a bad precedent.

[Birthmark]

52. It's a two-fold screw up this time.

The State Party clearly screwed up...and with malice aforethought. I think everyone agrees on that.

But the DNC compounded the problem by disenfranchising the People in response. Had the DNC merely done what the Repubs did and penalize FL half it's delegates, you'd be hearing nothing about FL.

So, there are two major screw ups here.

[redqueen]

59. I think she'd agree, actually.

:hi:

[eleny]

54. Yeah, what's next - "FINS!" ?

[sam kane]

70. Give two year olds more credit. nt.

nt