Democrats strip Florida of primary delegates

[EV_Ares]

WASHINGTON — Florida must comply with the national Democratic Party's rules for selecting presidential election delegates or lose any role in picking a Democratic nominee for the White House, party leaders decided Saturday.
Members of a Democratic National Committee panel voted to give Florida 30 days to amend its plan to hold a binding primary on Jan. 29. Under DNC rules, only Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina may hold a primary election or nominating caucus before Feb. 5.

If the state doesn't submit a new plan for selecting delegates, it will lose all of its 210 delegates to the party's national convention in Denver next year — the harshest possibly penalty.

"We have 49 other states as important as Florida is to our democratic process and to our country," said Alexis M. Herman, co-chair of the DNC rules committee. "There is a fairness principle here."

The decision to move Florida's primary election up six weeks from March to Jan. 29 was made by Florida's GOP-controlled legislature. The new date makes Florida among the first states to hold a primary.

(entire article @ link)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-08-25-florida_N.htm?csp=34

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. I don't understand. Someone please explain this to me. Thanks. nt

[kdmorris]

2. It basically means that...

if our leaders in Florida don't set the date back to at least Feb 5, or set an official caucus/primary for Feb 5 or after to select our delegates, then none of the Democratic votes for the nominee will count during the convention. In fact, we will not be allowed to send delegates to the convention.

So, basically, unless they get their act together, I don't get to vote for the nominee of my choice and will only get to vote in the general election, thereby effectively disenfranchising me (and millions of other Florida Democrats)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. Okay, I understand it. Now my question is, WHY? Who made up these asinine rules? nt

[Colonel Bat Guano]

4. Florida goes R in 2008

What this means, if not corrected, is Democratic candidates will pull back because they think the primary is meaningless. Less TV, less personal appearances.

The Republican candidates will oddly notice this and spend more time in the state.

This has to be resolved, or the Dem candidates will stay away from Florida, while the R candidates will work it from Key West to the panhandle.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

21. ? That confuses me even further. nt

[madfloridian]

7. Florida could have applied to be earlier.

All states were given the option. The DNC added two racially diverse states in with IA and NH, which is a good thing....but no one cares about that.

Florida could have stayed in Feb. and kept their delegates.

This is a power play.

[madfloridian]

17. A committee appointed by McAuliffe, and the 447 DNC members.

made up the rules.

[MiniMe]

5. Sounds like the blame lies with Florida's GOP-controlled legislature

They knew the rules when they voted for the primary date. Stop blaming the DNC.

[flyarm]

8. some of the state legislators dems voted for this..it can't be totally blamed

on the rethugs..were they tricked..i don't know..but some dems in the Fla state legislature voted for it..it pissed many of us dems off! and i do not think it bodes well for the chair of the FDP..but then she took $35,000 from a repub lobbyist...so i don't think too much of her!

this was a failure i believe at the top of the party..but it will also benefit Hillary and guliani...and the FDP chair has already sold out to the DLC..we saw that with Rahm coming into our state and screwing many of our great dems in the 2006 election...

of course we have all been told to shut up about it all!!

fly ...a 2004 dem delegate

[retread]

12. Isn't the Florida state legislature about 2/3's repug? n/t

[madfloridian]

16. How about all of the Dems voted for it? And one introduced the bill.

.

[madfloridian]

6. Florida could have kept all their delegates.

If they had not gone earlier than Feb. 5, OR even if they could have proved they fought the Republicans.

BUT they didn't fight. Democrats like Wexler and Ring stood with Crist for the signing, and Ring sponsored the bill.

They could have kept their delegates, but the committee said they did not fight the Republicans hard enough...and they didn't.

[kdmorris]

13. Actually...

We can STILL keep our delegates, if they have a caucus or some other "official" way of deciding the delegates on or after Feb. 5th.

I just don't see the Florida Democratic Party, the Legislature or the Governor giving in on this, since they know when they did it that it would get them sanctioned. Hell, Bill Nelson is talking court battles, but the Florida Democratic Party agreed to the Feb. 5th date and then worked in cahoots with the Republican led legislature to thumb their nose at it.

This sucks.

[madfloridian]

15. The local paper just called Dean toast and bragged on Nelson's bravery.

So when you have the media on your side....

[kdmorris]

19. No wonder everyone calls us a banana republic

Jeez... I can't believe this. What a fiasco!

[radfringe]

9. this whole thing with leap-frogging primary dates

in an effort to be FIRST in the nation is freaking stupid

at this rate there will be no primaries because the primaries will be pushed back to LAST April, and we missed them

I imagine if there's ONE national primary day, the states will be complaining about the time zone differences and start pushing back the opening/closing time at the polls

come up with some sort of grouping of states, like by geographic location, (NE, SE, Midwest, West, West Coast), set them up at 2-week intervals, and rotate the voting dates every 4 years. Example - 2012: NE goes first, in 2016: NE drops to bottom of list, and SE goes first... etc.

and as far as far as the DNC kicking out FL Delegates - nothing like shooting off your own foot while cutting off your nose.... idiots

[cali]

10. There's a problem with rotating regionals.

Say the west goes next, it's over after the first regional. Period. That's even more unfair than the current status quo. And in any case, with regional, no small state would ever see a visit from a candidate. It just wouldn't matter any more. In fact, retail politics, enabling someone like a Bill Clinton to emerge, would be extinct. Only candidates with huge war chests for blanket tv ads, would compete.

[radfringe]

11. no small state would ever see a visit from a candidate

dividing by regional groups was just one suggestion... and used as an easy example on how to rotate the primaries

as far as small states go - do the groups by some sort based on electoral votes.

or every national election year, put all the states in a hat, and randomly pick 10 states for group 1, next 10-group 2, etc. (5 groups total)

or just go with a national primary day...

as far as war chests go - we know the answer to that - campaign finance reform... yeah it's a pipe dream...

[cali]

14. small states should always go first.

Doesn't have to be Iowa or NH. Could be a group of rotating 10 or so. Face it CFR is a pipe dream. As for NH, IA, and now Nevada and SC exercising too much power, those states have only a small number of delegates needed. The other states are hardly forced to go with the verdict of NH and IA.

[dysfunctional press]

20. instead of by region, group them population AND region-

with the exception of the largest states, population-wise. leave ALL the most populous states for the last primary week- california, florida, illinois, michigan, new jersey, new york, ohio, pennsylvania, massachusetts and texas. the group of these biggest states would always go last- the other groupings of "smaller" states, divided by region- would rotate which grouping went first each cycle.

i'm seeing it as 5 primary election dates, with 10 states in each, and 11 in one for the D. of C.- but it could easily be further divided to allow for more election dates, if 10 states per date is too many.

[rucky]

18. Is this a done deal? n/t