How good, really, is the case for excluding Florida?

[Austinitis]

So let’s start with the observation that, barring some huge and unexpected event, neither candidate can realistically win the nomination without the help of a fair number of super-delegates. This in turn means that a lot of what’s left to be done in this race consists of making moral arguments to super-delegates to garner support.

One of these arguments, and the argument obviously favored by the Obama camp, says that super-delegates are obligated to support whoever amasses the most pledged-delegates. That a pledged-delegate lead, however small, reflects the will of the Democratic electorate and that to vote for anyone but the pledged-delegate leader would be to overturn the will of the people.

But another, quite plausible position insists that super-delegates are, instead, obligated to support whichever candidate leads in the popular vote. There’s a strong case to be made for the claim that the popular vote reflects the will of the Democratic electorate far better than pledged-delegate tallies (though I’m going to leave that case for another entry), and if super-delegates want to avoid overturning the popular will, they should look the popular vote tallies in making their decision.

And while Obama currently leads on both of these metrics, it’s http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html">certainly within the realm of possibility, depending on which votes are counted, for Hillary to overtake Obama in the popular vote. Importantly, if Florida’s votes are counted, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html">Hillary finds herself only 400,000 votes behind, and that’s nothing that couldn’t be overcome with an Ohio-like victory in Pennsylvania (Ohio, after all, netted Hillary 200,000 votes) and decent performance in other states. (That said, I think the popular vote is Hillary’s only realistic path to victory. If she doesn’t win that, although she may stay in the race, it’ll be impossible for her to win.)

So let’s take a look at the sort of case that can be made for counting Florida’s votes in the popular vote tally (and, conversely, the sort of case that can be made for excluding those votes).

Arguments for Inclusion:

• Individual Florida voters aren’t responsible for the primary dates and deserve a voice in the process. Even if Florida behaved badly in moving its primary date forward, most Floridians had nothing to do with the date of their primary. To silence the voices of all Floridians as punishment for the actions of their legislature is collective punishment, and is just as morally problematic here as it is when practiced by the Israelis against the Palestinians. Moreover, punishing people by taking away their votes is already morally problematic when done to felons, and is even more so when done to largely innocent Floridians.
  
  
• Florida votes reflect the will of Florida voters. The rational being urged on super-delegates here has the following structure:
  
  Vote Results -–act as evidence for>--> Popular Will -–which creates>--> Moral Obligation on Super-Delegates
  
  Note that nothing in the chain above is obviously broken by the misbehavior of the Florida legislature. The election held in Florida still creates legitimate evidence of popular will, and popular will still creates a moral obligation on super-delegates. The fact that Florida broke DNC rules simply isn’t relevant to a "popular will" line of reasoning. Super-delegates have no good reason to cite the behavior of the Florida legislature as an excuse to disregard the votes of Florida citizens.
  
  
• Florida is a swing state, and it doesn’t help us in November to disenfranchise them now. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/04/the_line_these_states_in_play.html">Obama already has serious problems against McCain in Florida and if Floridians think that Obama won the nomination by silencing their voices it’s going to be hard to win them back over to our side. We go a long way towards healing those wounds if we at least count their votes into our popular vote.

Arguments for Exclusion:

• Counting Florida’s votes will change the rules mid-game. The Florida legislature moved its primary forward against the rules and the DNC decided to strip them of their delegates as punishment. Both candidates have been operating under the assumption that Florida’s election wouldn’t count and they might have behaved differently had they known the rules would change. Counting the votes would thus be unfair to both candidates (even if Hillary would like it).
  
  Reply: The argument given here displays a misunderstanding of both the DNC’s actions and the popular-will arguments being made.
  
  The argument misinterprets the DNC’s decision to conclude that the DNC stripped the state of all of it’s relevance in the nominating process. In fact, while the DNC stripped the pledged-delegates from Florida there simply are no rules declaring that the Florida’s votes should not count in the popular vote tally (partially because there is no "official" tally). Moreover, DNC rules allow super-delegates to vote as they wish, meaning that there are no DNC rules requiring super-delegates to exorcise Florida’s votes from their moral calculus.
  
  Furthermore, the argument misinterprets the moral reasoning being urged on super-delegates when popular-will is referenced. As noted above, there never have been rules governing the way super-delegates can vote. This means that super-delegates are urged to vote on the basis of some metric (e.g. popular vote or pledged delegate leads), there simply are no rules to change.
  
  
• Because of the DNC’s decision, neither candidate campaigned in Florida. Moreover, many voters stayed home under the impression that their vote wouldn’t count. The election results are thus flawed and fail to be good evidence for popular will. Since Florida’s votes only link into the popular will argument via their value as an indicator of popular will, this fact severs the link and justifies excluding their vote.
  
  Reply: Arguments of this sort are by far the best justifications for excluding Florida’s votes from the popular vote tally, but even this argument suffers from obvious flaws.
  
  Importantly, in every national election there are states which match the description above and yet we still consider the national popular vote tally including those states morally significant. For example, in the 2000 election Gore almost certainly declined to campaign seriously in Montana and Utah while Bush almost certainly declined to campaign in Vermont and California. Nonetheless, we consider the fact that Gore won the popular vote morally significant, even though the popular vote total includes those states.
  
  Furthermore, it’s likely that people in those states may have stayed home on the assumption that their vote was unlikely to change the outcome. Again, we nonetheless find Gore’s popular vote victory significant.
  
  Finally, there are other states in the current primary that no one wants to exclude from the popular vote but which neither candidate campaigned in. For example, it’s unlikely that Hillary ran seriously in Illinois or that Obama campaigned seriously in New York. Nonetheless, there don’t seem to be many cries to throw out the 600,000 extra votes picked up by Obama in Illinois.

Conclusion:

The case for excluding Florida’s votes, thus, seems in many ways rather weak. While there are always inadequacies in any voting system, excluding Florida’s votes from the popular vote tally seems to create more problems than it solves.

(Finally, before anyone responds. I’d like to stress once again that we’re talking about the popular vote tally here. I’m not making an argument for seating Florida’s pledged delegates.)

<EDIT for formatting>

[stray cat]

1. There was only one person to vote for in FL - Hillary was the only one on the ballet

Saddam got 100% when he ran under those conditions....

[Austinitis]

2. That was Michigan, not Florida

I don't know what to do with Michigan, but at least Florida ought to be counted.

[DarienComp]

3. actually that's not true.

Hillary was the only top-tier candidate on the ballot in Michigan.

[jenmito]

5. No. All the names were on the ballot in FL. But they didn't campaign there since FL broke the

rules. They knew it wouldn't count. When Obama starts campaigning in any state, he closes the gap or ends up winning the state.

[jackson_dem]

101. Obama ran ads there. No one else did

[lisa58]

6. They were both on the ballot in FL...

...MI only had Hillary on the ballot

[QC]

30. Bullshit. All of the candidates were on my ballot. n/t

[lisa58]

4. They both agreed to not campaign or count FL...

...if they had both campaigned - more people would have voted and the results would have been different.

[Austinitis]

13. I actually address that in the OP

if maybe you care to read the OP before replying to the OP...

[spooky3]

24. Your OP is very good.

Interesting, isn't it, how many replies indicate the writer either didn't read your OP, or didn't understand it, since they merely repeat an argument without responding to your refutation of it.

Also, is it factually correct (as someone else claimed) that the candidates "agreed not to count" FL? I think they agreed only not to campaign there.

[jenmito]

7. FL broke the rules. This is their punishment. And if Hillary hadn't come out ahead in FL, do you

REALLY think she'd be pushing for it to count?

[Austinitis]

12. Collective Punishment = Wrong

"Florida" isn't an individual Floridian probably doesn't deserve punishment because of what the legislature did. Your reasoning sounds like "Hispanics broke the rules. This is their punishment."

[jenmito]

16. Huh? FL BROKE THE RULES. Obama didn't get to campaign there. And you didn't answer the question-

If Hillary hadn't won that non-counting primary, do you think she'd still be wanting the result to count?

[Austinitis]

21. "Florida" isn't a singe person. You're not punishing "FLorida" - you're punishing individuals

who for the most part didn't do anything wrong. And I address the "didn't campaign there" thing in the OP.

And no, if Hillary had lost she wouldn't be pushing for the votes to count. Obama would then be pushing for the votes to count. And in the scenario Obama would be right and Hillary would be wrong. But in the real world, where Obama is fighting it and Hillary is trying to count them, she's right and he's wrong.

[jenmito]

23. Why do you keep saying that? It doesn't MATTER that FL isn't a person. The Dems. tried to

push up the date of their primary-breaking the rules. And over a million people did NOT vote in FL, knowing it wouldn't count!

[Austinitis]

26. Look, you're lumping people together and dehumanizing them

when you say that "Florida broke the rules" as if everyone in Florida is some homogenous mass. That's like saying "the Palestinians keep launching rockets at Israel, so it's OK if the Israelis impose apartheid." Not every Palestinian/Floridian is responsible for the actions of every other Palestinian/Floridian. You're engaging in the same sort of reasoning that makes racism and sexism so offensive.

[jenmito]

28. YOU look. The Dems. in office in FL broke the rules, ok? Jeez, you're really reaching

with your justifications.

[BzaDem]

49. Their entire point is that the Dems. in office do NOT represent Florida voters on this one issue

(the scheduling of the primary).

[dbmk]

56. I would think thats an issue between the Florida voters and the people they voted for.

Because like it or not, you don't really get to opt out of the representation issue on the things you don't agree with. If that was the case, you could argue against following any law you did not agree with.

Whether its smart or not (Or right in a moral sense, for that matter) by the DNC to do what they did is another question.

But that argument is not very valid, nevertheless.

[BzaDem]

65. Nope. That argument doesn't work.

What if the state legislature of CA decided to make it so all 55 electoral votes go automatically to McCain? Would you then say "that's something CA voters will need to take up with their legislators."

No, of course you wouldn't say that. Because that would hurt your candidate. But what FL did helps your candidate, so THAT's OK.

You can hold people responsible for actions of their legislators for regular issues. But not for issues relating to the right to vote. That is why courts have always applied a higher standard of scrutiny to voting law changes. Obviously, this situation has nothing to do with the courts, but the same principle applies.

[tekisui]

29. Dehumanizing?

:rofl: :rofl:

Clinton Defenders have gone off the deep end!

[jenmito]

39. It's called "desperation."

:rofl:

[QC]

32. "Obama didn't get to campaign there."

That's funny, 'cause he sure did have a lot of ads on the teevee here.

[jenmito]

38. He had a national ad buy. He didn't campaign there. People didn't get to ask him questions, see

him in person, etc. He ALWAYS gains big when he does that.

[QC]

43. Funny how Clinton and Edwards managed to keep ther ads off Florida TV. n/t

[jenmito]

44. They didn't have the money to take national ad buys. Funny how she managed to have fundraisers

there.

[BzaDem]

50. AS DID HE.

[Auntie Bush]

95. If Obama had won the FL primary...would they want to count FL?

Me thinks the answer is, yes. Let's be honest people!

[Zodiak]

98. Me thinks the answer is "no"

After all, he signed an agreement that the primary would not count. His opinion is written in black and white.

Where is your evidence otherwise since you are so sure the "honest" answer is yes?

[MaineDem]

8. It was all name recognition since no candidates campaigned there

And many other reasons...people not voting, switching parties since the Dem vote wouldn't count, etc.

Since we've hashed this over ad nauseum here I'll stick with my understanding that the case is very strong for excluding Florida.

[AJH032]

58. by the time of the FL primary, Obama's name was very recognizable.

nt

[goldcanyonaz]

91. Oh please. Obama was already a household name.

[GarbagemanLB]

9. Their delegates will not be seated until a nominee is chosen, sorry.

[Austinitis]

11. We're not talking about seating delegates

We're talking about what super-delegates should look at.

[babylonsister]

10. FL Dems were told their votes wouldn't count. As a result, many

people who weren't interested in other issues on the ballot didn't vote. Doesn't sound too enfranchising to me.

[TahitiNut]

14. If, in a General Election, voters were told their Democratic votes wouldn't be counted ...

... people would scream bloody murder - and rightfully so. Elections are compromised far too much as it is. It's appetite and not justice that motivates the call to legitimize an 'election' that was so fatally flawed. Putting Humpty-Dumpty back together after eating the omelet is specious - no matter how much one paws through the fecal matter.

[Obamanaut]

15. I am in Florida. Franchise (or enfranchise) is the right to vote. We

here in Fla have not lost that right at all. The votes cast in the primary may not be counted, but we did not lose the right to vote - we were not 'disenfranchised.'

Many of us voted because of the property tax amendment on the ballot, knowing that any votes cast for a primary candidate would not be counted.

I cannot speak for Michigan, but what I suggest for Floridians is that we mark our ballots for a non-incumbent - both houses. They are the ones who got us into this mess, under the guise of seeking relevance. So, let them seek relevance for themselves in other employment, because I don't want them to work for me anymore.

[Austinitis]

18. The franchise isn't just the right to vote

it's the right to vote in a meaningful way. And that's taken away by not counting the votes.

[BzaDem]

51. Wow that's bullshit.

Seriously, did you agree with Bush in the 2000 election? In that election, more people voted for Gore than Bush. But Florida decided not to count all the votes. Hence, Bush won.

Is that OK with you? As long as you have the right to vote, everything's OK, even if that vote is not counted later?

That really trivializes voting rights.

[KaryninMiami]

17. You can't change the rules after the game is played.

We either need a complete Re-Vote here in Florida (which is not likely to happen due to various reasons) or they should split the votes and delegates 50/50. Granting Clinton- or any candidate an edge or more votes now, after we were robbed by our own local party (Florida Democrats) who ignored the warnings of the DNC not to move the date, only adds salt to the wound.

We were told our votes would not count and we knew that on election day. There's no gray area here. People voted based on that fact- some didn't vote, some picked candidates knowing the votes would not be counted. Changing the rules now- simply to appease on candidate who is desperately doing whatever she can to make sure she wins this nomination and now wants the FL votes to count "as is" (showing her as the winner "as is"-- would outrageous.

Our anger should be at the Florida Democratic party big-wigs- my Congressperson included (thanks for nothing Debbie Wasserman Schultz-)-- who screwed us out of having our voices heard by ignoring and therefore breaking the rules and voting with the FL GOP to move up the primary date without even a whimper- knowing full well of the consequences. Shame on every one of them for what they did to us. There were other options on the table at that time- even knowing that the GOP would probably move the dates regardless-- but you ignored them all thinking this would never be an issue. Why? Because you were sure that your candidate, Hillary Clinton, would already have the nomination by now and it would not matter.

I'm mad as hell about this and there's no way I will sit by quietly and allow my vote to be stolen again and give Clinton the win here in Florida.

[BzaDem]

53. This is even more ridiculous.

We have two bad options.

One, is to count all the votes as they were cast. This represents the will of the voters who came to the polls and voted (the 4th highest turnout primary in this entire season, democratic or republican), even though *some* didn't come because it didn't count.

Two, is to count NONE of the votes, which represents NOBODY. (That's splitting 50/50.)

You keep attacking option one. But you are even worse than that, because you want option two, not counting Floridians at all.

No one said this was an easy choice. But between one and two, representing those who got off their asses and voted, and representing NOBODY, option one is better.

[dbmk]

63. Rewarding a breaking of the rules that is clearly in one contestants favour is better?

By that argument there is not much argument against completely bogus elections in dictatorships around the world.

"ok, you killed and threatened the opposition and scared away their voters. But I guess someone voted and thats better than nothing."

If you tell people a vote does not count and then count it anyway, you are morally and technically so far out of bounds in terms of democracy and fairness that it blows my mind.

How on earth would a president that stood on the shoulders of something like that be supposed to be taken seriously if he or she were to lecture heads of state in less democratic states on democracy?

[BzaDem]

64. That doesn't even compare.

Both Hillary and Obama supporters heard the same thing about delegates. Both Hillary and Obama couldn't campaign. Both didn't. But both held fundraisers (within the rules). Neither candidates' supporters were intimidated or scared.

Everything was equal. Nothing favored Hillary.

Except the fact that SHE WON. That was the only thing that favored her. With rules that were equal for both candidates, Hillary won.

And that's the only reason you don't like it.

[dbmk]

96. Except for 15-20 years worth of name recognition with voters,

[Lone_Star_Dem]

19. In Texas our primary votes usually don't count

So many times we (Texas Democrats) crossover and vote on the Republican ticket in order to vote on other issue that are of importance to us locally. Others just don't bother to vote at all if they've no local issues on the ballot they're interested in.

This year we knew we would be relevant and as such broke Texas records for Democratic turnout, while the Republicans had a pitiful turnout.

If one knows ones vote is going to matter what you do with it is much more important to you than if you believe it is irrelevant.

In Florida Democrats were told this year their votes would not matter in the Democratic primary. It doesn't seem to be any leap of logic that they then would have voted (or not voted) as if their votes were irrelevant.

[Austinitis]

22. I address this in the OP

but shout out to another Texas Democrat!

[Why Syzygy]

20. They played a game (with people's lives). They LOST by breaking the rules. It's over. Go home.

[Austinitis]

25. Once again, collective punishment is wrong

Yes, the legislature screwed up, but punishing all Floridians because of that is like punishing all Palestinians because of Hamas.

[Why Syzygy]

31. Floridians are responsible

for their office holders in their state. There's nothing we can do about that. The most outspoken Floridian on DU supports Howard Dean's handling of the situation.

I'm likewise not responsible for anything Hamas does, am I?

Your argument is not convincing. Stating it over and over again does not change the reception.

[DawgHouse]

94. Not sure who

this "most outspoken Floridan on DU" may be, but I doubt this person who supports Dean carries much weight with the average Floridian.

But you are right that Florida voters (of which I am one) should turn the party members out who did this to us.

[madfloridian]

41. Give her the delegates. Today.

Then will you guys hush about it?

[dbmk]

60. But Hamas are not elected representatives of the people of Palestine.

If they were and passed a law that said "Attack Israel with what you have" - then it would surely be fair for Israel to impose sanctions.

[madfloridian]

27. Let's give Hillary FL and MI delegates so she will shut up about it.

And so her supporters can go to bed at night resting easier, knowing that the party broke the rules for her.

Let her have them...Dear God....give them to her.

Let her then shut up about it.

[tekisui]

33. Yeah, but it would have CHANGED things!

We all know the coronation of Queen Hillary was stopped through an illegal a COUP!!!!


:eyes:

The Hillary Bubble Brigade are facing a hard time accepting defeat.

[BzaDem]

54. Yes, we will "hush" if the right thing is done.

Many of us care more about voting rights than arbitrarily rules that are not enforced fairly against all states.

[madfloridian]

55. See what I mean. You are calling rules "arbitrary." You guys amaze me.

Just make sh** up and toss it against the wall and hope it sticks.

Give her the effing delegates.

[BzaDem]

68. You are the one making sh** up. They were absolutely arbitrarily applied.

The rules made Iowa go first, Nevada go second, and New Hampshire go third. The penalty for violating the rules? Minus half the delegates (with an option for increasing this).

But Nooooo. New Hampshire wouldn't have it. They changed their date earlier, in VIOLATION of the rules. So did Florida.

What did the DNC do? They WAIVED the penalty entirely for New Hampshire. They lost no delegates. On the other hand, they increased the penalty to ALL of FL's delegates.

Please read up on what actually happened before you accuse others of making sh** up.

[madfloridian]

69. No, you read up on it. The early 4 states got permission.

When you make sh** up over and over you prove your ignorance of facts.

This is sad and pathetic. When you are in a hole, quit digging.

[BzaDem]

73. I'm sorry, you are wrong.

All 4 states had permission to go early. But New Hampshire was supposed to go on Jan 22. Then they moved their date to Jan 9th. That violated the rules. The DNC waived the rules for New Hampshire. They did not waive the rules for Florida.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19levin.html

"Back in 2004, Michigan Democrats considered taking the Iowa-New Hampshire issue to the party’s national convention, but we agreed instead to the creation of the Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling to examine the process. After a year of study and public hearings, the commission expressed “serious concerns that Iowa and New Hampshire are not fully reflective of the Democratic electorate or the national electorate generally — and therefore do not place Democratic candidates before a representative range of voters in the critical early weeks of the process.”

A crucial change was recommended: that additional states join Iowa and New Hampshire in holding early primaries and caucuses, and that New Hampshire’s primary be the third or fourth contest.

In 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule providing that four states — Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina — could hold their presidential primary or caucus in January, with the rest of the states following. The rule dictated that the early states hold their contests in a specific order — with New Hampshire coming third — and no earlier than designated dates between Jan. 14 and Jan. 29.

But last August, the New Hampshire secretary of state indicated he was going to schedule his state’s primary before the date specified, clearly defying the sequence and timing the party had set. Michigan Democratic leaders repeatedly asked the Democratic National Committee if it intended to penalize New Hampshire for this violation, but the committee refused to act. "

[madfloridian]

78. No, I am not wrong. MI jumped ahead of NH before NH ever moved.

I have written about it over and over. You are not telling the truth, and no one else is going to call you out on it.

It is in my journal, search for Levin, NH, MI...or something like that.

Make up your own rules...give it to Hillary. I don't give a damn anymore.

[BzaDem]

81. I know MI jumped ahead of NH before NH ever moved. I never said otherwise. How am I not telling the

truth? Your definition of "not telling the truth" seems to be not emphasizing the points that favor your argument. Nothing I said was untrue at all.

I simply said that NH jumped and therefore violated the rules. And they weren't penalized.

What you are saying is essentially "well it's OK that they jumped because some other state (MI) also jumped without permission, and they were correcting for that." But that's a different question entirely. The rules were set up so that New Hampshire went ***third.*** Then MI jumped up. So to make sure NH's ego wasn't bruised (as their state constitution said they must have the first primary in the nation), NH jumped ahead of MI, and therefore ahead of NV (because MI was ahead of NV).

Well, there you have it. NH violated the rules. And it wasn't just technical; the rules were specifically designed so that NH went ***third***, not second (to lessen the influence of NH). Just like the rules were specifically designed so that FL went after super Tuesday, to lessen the influence of FL (and the other big states).

It is pretty simple. NH violated the rules specifically designed to lessen NH's influence, and FL violated the rules specifically designed to lessen FL's influence. NH got their penalty entirely waived, and FL got their penalty doubled.

Please tell me where the "lie" is in that, if you are going to accuse me of lying.

[madfloridian]

86. Here: Your own words.

"The rules made Iowa go first, Nevada go second, and New Hampshire go third. The penalty for violating the rules? Minus half the delegates (with an option for increasing this).

But Nooooo. New Hampshire wouldn't have it. They changed their date earlier, in VIOLATION of the rules. So did Florida.

What did the DNC do? They WAIVED the penalty entirely for New Hampshire. They lost no delegates. On the other hand, they increased the penalty to ALL of FL's delegates.

Please read up on what actually happened before you accuse others of making sh** up."

[BzaDem]

88. If that is a lie as you claim, please cite a source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19levin.html

"In 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule providing that four states — Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina — could hold their presidential primary or caucus in January, with the rest of the states following. The rule dictated that the early states hold their contests in a specific order — with New Hampshire coming third — and no earlier than designated dates between Jan. 14 and Jan. 29.

While Michigan Democrats were disappointed that our state was not selected for one of the four early contests, we appreciated the new rule for adding a bit of much-needed diversity to the early nominating process, and as a first step toward breaking the Iowa-New Hampshire lock. We announced that we would abide by the new calendar provided that other states did the same.

But last August, the New Hampshire secretary of state indicated he was going to schedule his state’s primary before the date specified, clearly defying the sequence and timing the party had set. Michigan Democratic leaders repeatedly asked the Democratic National Committee if it intended to penalize New Hampshire for this violation, but the committee refused to act.

Rather than allow this broken system to persist, we challenged it by deciding to apportion our delegates according to the results of a primary scheduled by the Michigan Legislature for Jan. 15.

The Democratic National Committee proceeded to selectively enforce its calendar rule. It gave New Hampshire a waiver to move from third to second place in the sequence. But Michigan and Florida, which had also moved up the date of its primary, were denied waivers. When Howard Dean, the party chairman, says that states should not be allowed to violate the rules, he ignores the fact that when the committee itself decided not to follow the rules and granted a waiver to New Hampshire, it set the stage for the present impasse."

[madfloridian]

90. You are quoting Levin to argue with me? Not a good source.

I wrote about it, look it up.

[bobbert]

102. why are you quoting an opinion piece

just look at the link you provide and you will see a /opinion/ in there. Try a factual article, you can find a bunch in madfloridian's journal

edit: or when you click on the link you see a huge 'opinion' at the top of the page.

[madfloridian]

34. Give her the effing delegates. Now. Today.

Then we can stop lying as a party....that rules don't matter.

Give her the effing delegates. Shut her up.

[BlooInBloo]

35. The state party is to blame. No one else.

[Austinitis]

46. The state legislature is to blame.

And that was mainly Republicans.

[madfloridian]

71. Lie. The vote was 115 to 1...and they were enthusiastic about it.

Shame on you. This anything goes, any lie is ok kind of politics is cheap and tawdry.

[RichardRay]

36. Wrong on the face of it...

Franchised rights are rights of citizenship, not of party membership or participation. If the Democratic Party decided to select it's candidate via trial by combat there would be nothing 'wrong' with that; no one 'disenfranchised' by the decision. You make a number of internally consistent arguments, but the lack of basis makes them lead nowhere.

But, on to the question of the popular vote. There has been no popular vote. There have been primaries and caususes designed to select delegates. If you want to support candidate selection via popular vote then let's revote with that goal clearly in mind. Right now, there aren't the kind of protections in place that surround the popular vote for offic, and we know there are questions about the correctness of that vote, even with the protections that do exist.

We have a nomination process based on delegate selection, modified by the super delegates. The super delegates will vote as they want to, based on their understanding of what's best for the party and how that's determined - that's what makes them 'super' delegates. As Democrats we can urge them to vote one way or another based on our personal opinions on what should count, but that all it is - our personal opinions.

Your personal opinion is that the Florida vote should count in (the nebulous at best) popular vote tally, and that that tally should sway the SD's. Fine, that's your opinion and you've every right to it. Just don't start talking about 'voter disenfranchisement' - it just doesn't apply.

[dchill]

37. Seriously - the DNC set the rules before the primary...

season began. Florida and Michigan broke those rules. The Clinton camp are the ONLY ones questioning those rules, now. Some of the people in the Clinton camp are members of the same DNC that set the rules, and approved the rules at the time. No soup for you.

[NorthCarolina]

40. The original agreement should stand

Many FL voters simply stayed home because they were told that their vote wouldn't count. If you now all of a sudden decide...well, OK we'll count your vote now, then you have immediately disenfranchised all those voters that stayed home.

The only fair thing to do is play by the rules that were established at the beginning of the campaign. Every candidate was in agreement at that time, and all started out on an equal footing in that regard. To change the rules at this late stage in the game will be construed as rigging the system and will turn millions of voters off.

The rules have been enforced to date and we are where we are because of, and in-spite of, the rules established at the beginning of the contest. Live by the rules, let it play out, and may the best candidate win. There really is no other totally fair choice.

[EFerrari]

42. We should just give Florida back to the Seminole.

They managed it much better than we have.

[Orangepeel]

45. It WOULD be changing the rules and that's NOT a weak argument

all candidates designed their campaign strategies with the DNC's decision to strip Florida of it delegates in mind. It is true that the DNC could have come up with a different punishment, such as stripping half of the delegates. But they didn't, and it isn't fair to change it now.

As a practical matter, once the nominee is chosen and it won't make any difference, the DNC credentials committee will come up with some compromise to seat some or all of the delegates. But that doesn't make "not changing the stated procedures in the middle of the process" less valid.

[boppers]

47. When florida has a valid primary, they can be included.

Until then, all the whining in the world won't change their invalid election.

[dcindian]

48. Florida tried to disenfranchise the entire country

Now they whine like Hillary when they get caught. If you think about it... It's Karma

[bobbert]

103. That's a good point

They wanted to have the most important, be-all end-all election for the democratic primary. Once somebody had a huge lead in a big state they figured they would be most important, so they can suck it. Let 48 states and 2 territories decide rather than big ones which went red last election anyways.

[Zachstar]

52. I give you one great case. It was a state that cheated.

NEXT!

[Austinitis]

59. From now on here's the procedure:

Read first, then reply.

[Zachstar]

62. I did read it. The same tired drawn out arguements Clinton supporters have been saying for months

[anonymous171]

57. very good.

[madfloridian]

61. Changing the rules from delegates to popular vote. Cheap way to win.

I am having trouble believing Hillary's campaign is doing this.

But they are, you are.

[BzaDem]

66. No rule change. Superdelegates give it to Hillary because she won the popular vote? Within the rules

[madfloridian]

67. Show me the rules. SDs can vote their conscience.

But they can not even change the rules for Hillary.

This is ridiculous.

[BzaDem]

70. Of course they can vote their conscience. I don't see the problem.

[madfloridian]

72. You are saying the popular vote counts toward the nominee.

It is a lie. A party based on lies can not survive.

I say give Ms Hillary the whole shebang. Let her effing have the nomination.

[BzaDem]

74. LOL, what I'm saying is very clear and is certainly not a lie.

Superdelegates certainly have the right to vote based upon the popular vote. Or for any other reason. Those are the precious rules you keep revering. I think they should. But what I think doesn't matter; what the SDs think do matter. If Hillary wins the popular vote, and the SDs give the nomination to her, she would have won within the rules. I'm sure you will still be saying how it somehow went against the rules, but that doesn't make it any more true.

[madfloridian]

77. I have learned that Hillary's campaign is ruthless.

They will stop at nothing to win.

There might as well not be a party or structure at all.

You and her other supporters posting here laugh at those of us really try to make sense. You make fun of those who try to present facts.

It is just like her campaign. Hillary wins or no one does.

LOL LOL all you want.

I don't have to make sh** up to post.

[BzaDem]

83. Please tell me ONE thing I said in this ENTIRE thread that is a "lie."

Not something that doesn't emphasize the argument you favor. Something I said that is a lie. You are saying I am making up sh**. Find me one thing that is factually incorrect, and back up what you said. Put up or shut up please.

[madfloridian]

85. NH, MI, DNC

[BzaDem]

87. What about them? Is it a lie that they exist as states? Sheesh!

NH violated the rules by moving ahead of NV. DNC waived their penalty, while doubling FL's penalty. The reason NH did it is because of MI, but that doesn't make it any less true.

[madfloridian]

89. Read your own words.

Think about how you said it.

[electron_blue]

75. People were told their votes wouldn't count. Many stayed home because of this.

Including members of my family! I tried hard to convince them anyway to go vote, but they assured me that they actually lived in Florida (which I did not) and the word on the street was more accurate than what I heard half a country away. They told me the newspapers told them the Dem votes wouldn't count.

This is the problem I have with counting Florida now - counting the votes cast now after originally telling people it wouldn't matter and many stayed home bcs of it.

If the Dem party in Florida has a plan B they want to enact, then they should make it clear that this is exactly what it is - just a plan B, and not pretend that the votes cast earlier this year were done at a *real* primary.

I think the number of delegates that could have come from Florida and Michigan should be subtracted from the total pool needed to get the nomination. There is no fair way to resolve this. Counting votes now that previously were told were irrelevant strikes me as devious and a dangerous precedent. In case you're wondering, I voted for Hillary, and yet I'm still against having Florida votes counted on principle.

[quakerboy]

76. "popular vote tally"

is not an official tally.

There is no official charged with the keeping of it, it bears no defined relation to any delegates or other machinations. So if you want to count Florida's popular vote, go for it. Its a free country. Every person in is is free to count or not any state within it as they consider for themselves what the popular vote means to them personally. Because the only value of the popular vote tally is whatever each person takes for themselves from it.

[madfloridian]

79. It is if Hillary says it is. It is her "new rule."

[quakerboy]

82. That seems to be the rule they expect us to follow

Personally, I think that we should scrap the rest and just base our democratic nomination purely on Oregon, Colorado, and Guam. So far, Obama is winning, but 2/3rds of the contests have yet to vote, so it is still technically possible for Hillary to win.

[Firespirit]

80. How about this one.

If the DNC gives full votes to Florida despite the months and months of telling Florida that there would be consequences to voting for an unsanctioned primary, then it sets the precedent for ANY state to move up its primary as early as they want, and call the DNC's bluff on it.

Without a strong DNC, the primaries will be WORSE in (hopefully) 2016 than they were this year. It will be chaos, with all the states trying to get away with early primaries, and the DNC's word will be as worthless as a $3 bill in trying to apply order to the situation, because the DNC would've shown in 2008 that it could be bullied into retracting any punishment at all.

All Florida's legislators had to do was vote against the early primary and this wouldn't have happened. Read madfloridian's journals. Florida's pathetic Democratic legislators voted alongside the Republicans on this one.

[yewberry]

84. And another one:

If the FL delegates are seated, it will signal loud and clear to all of the other Dem voters in all of the other states in the country that the DNC can be cowed by a bunch of lawsuit-happy bullies into agreeing that, yes, Florida really is more important than all of the other states put together. In other words, a huge slap in the face.

(And FL votes are free to be counted in a"popular tally"--because a "popular tally" means absolutely nothing in a primary. Once again, with feeling: there is no meaning behind a "popular vote" in a primary that includes both caucuses and primaries, and suggesting that there is is disingenuous. No candidate can win a "popular vote" outside of the GE.)

[bhikkhu]

92. Perfectly pointless. The popular vote tally is free to construe however you like.

So include Florida in the popular vote tally - why not? There is no official tally, and there are dozens of different ways of figuring it. Some of the "math" people here have whole pages of election results and projections. All of them are complicated by the variety of ways in which the popular vote tally can be made. Florida is included as an option, and makes no real difference. You are not arguing with anyone here over the popular vote, though, it seems more just stirring the pot.

[AtomicKitten]

93. Florida and Michigan are being penalized for breaking DNC rules.

And Hillary signed on to the disposition of that outcome and was fine with it, only getting her knickers in a twist when she realized she's losing.

[Austinitis]

97. I answer this in the OP nt

[onenote]

99. most -- and indeed, only -- relevant point: there is no "official" popular vote tally

And there are numerous ways of "counting" that vote -- estimating a popular vote for caucus states, giving HRC credit for the Michigan vote, not giving her credit for Michigan, giving Obama credit for the uncommitteds in Michigan, not doing so, and on and on.

The fact is that the superdelegates have complete discretion. They aren't bound to follow the popular vote in their districts or states let alone the national vote, assuming a national vote can be discerned.

In other words, you can come up with any way of arguing about the popular vote you'd like, and in the end, it really doesn't change a thing.

[Austinitis]

100. The media fight changes a lot

which is why those of us who support Hillary need to be out there making our case.

[davidpdx]

104. I'm not sure about the argument that the popular vote should

count, but not the delegates. I tend to agree with MadFloridan, the supers are going to vote their conscience regardless of the talking points.

Personally I think after the nominations is decided the following should be done immediately:

1) Change the penalty for moving up the Florida's Primary to 1/2 of the delegates and assign them based on the vote.

2) Do the same for Michigan, but assign delegates 50/50.

Allow both states to have their full super delegate count with no bonus delegates.

The above plan would pretty much kill any notion that either state didn't get some say in Denver. At the same time, Florida and Michigan would not have a direct influence on the outcome of the nominee. I think this is more the generous given the situation. It would be an absolute mistake to give either state the full number of delegates beyond what I've outlined.