Shaking head

[Jenny_Jackson]

I've been trying to understand this controversy over the Florida and Michigan Democratic Delegates. From the DNC website, Rule 11 titled Timing of the Delegate Selection Process states in part:

A: No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaris which constitue the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process...may be hel prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the Second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national onvention.

That's fine except the section goes on -

Provieded, however, that the Iowa precint caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February, that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in Februay, that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February, and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

I wondered why Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina were exempt from the rule. It turns out that the State Legeslatures in each of those states had set the timing of their primaries and caucuses, so the DNC gave them exemptions.

From Wikapedia:

In the spring of 2007, the Florida legislature set the date of the primary to January 29, despite Democratic Party rules that forbade the state from holding a primary before February 5.

That set the primary 7 days prior to February 5th. Still wondering, I looked at the Republican National Committee website. Damn! The exact same rule.

But what did the Republicans do to penalize their candidates? They cut their delegates in half. While the Democracts invalidated the election entirely. There were 1,749,000 democrats who voted in the Florida primary, knowing that their votes may not count. After the primary was complete, the DNC took away the delegates, not before. Note: the voting turned out as Clinton 50% and Obama 33% with the rest of the votes split between Joe Biden and the rest of the early pack.

The story in Michigan is a little different, but not much. The Michigan Democratic Committee challenged the change made by the state legislature. The Michigan State Supreme Court approved the change. It appears that Michigan acted appropriately in challenging this change. But still Michigan has lost their delegates. Debbie Dingle, who spearheaded this change, tried to justify it by claiming it would force the DNC to reevaluate their rules. Can you say STUPID?

By the way, Obama forgot to register for the Michigan primary, but oddly enough seems to have activly campaigned there inspite of an agreement not to do so. There were about 750,000 votes cas with Clinton winning at 55%.

Yesterday, Chairman of the DNC, Howard Dean, came out and said Florida and Michigan could do one of two things:

1) "Resubmit a plan" ie hold a "do over" election at a cost of some $10 millions that the Republican controled Legilature will never pay for. Or...
2) Petition the Credentials Committee at the National Convention.

As near as I can tell, about 3,000,000 voters have been disposessed by the DNC. Does it really even matter who won those primaries? The bigger question here is did Florida and Michigan even have a voice in the selection of candidates?

I think there is justification for Michigan being left out since Debbie Dingle is a big wheel in the Michigan DNC ans started the whole mess there. She screwed her own party. But Florida is a different case. With the exception to the rule based on actions of the State Legistures, the National DNC had plenty of time (eigher or nine months) to add Florida to the exception list or make an extraordinary exception based on concesis. Why didn't they?

The effect is to strip Clinton of 173 delegates and Obama of 67. The difference is 106 delegates. Obama would still be ahead and some 3,000,000 voters would not feel screwed.

 

[ltnsfr007]

And I thought it was a guy that just got done peeing

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o232/ltnsfr/urinals.jpg

 

[sr71plt]

Voters can't be "dispossessed" in a party primary. The parties can do anything they want to choose a candidate. There's no requirement to be "fair" in any way. They could restrict the selectors to three fishermen in Cuba if they wanted to. And they don't have to do anything that the other party is doing either.

The DNC told the Florida and Michigan parties their primary would be invalidated if they went ahead with it earlier than sanctioned by the national DNC. The state parties went ahead. If the DNC puts all of this aside, it sinks deeper in the mire of what happens in the future when it is flaunted, and there will be just as many nattering about the rules having not been followed as there are now on the false issue of "disenfranchisement." It's the Florida and Michigan parties' fault and it's their problem to resolve at their cost.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Voters can't be "dispossessed" in a party primary. The parties can do anything they want to choose a candidate. There's no requirement to be "fair" in any way. They could restrict the selectors to three fishermen in Cuba if they wanted to. And they don't have to do anything that the other party is doing either.

The DNC told the Florida and Michigan parties their primary would be invalidated if they went ahead with it earlier than sanctioned by the national DNC. The state parties went ahead. If the DNC puts all of this aside, it sinks deeper in the mire of what happens in the future when it is flaunted, and there will be just as many nattering about the rules having not been followed as there are now on the false issue of "disenfranchisement." It's the Florida and Michigan parties' fault and it's their problem to resolve at their cost.

I don't entirely agree, SR. In the case of Michigan it is the fault of the State Democratic Committee because they allowed Debbie Dingle to force the change then found themselves locked in by the State High Court. They did this too themselves.

On the other hand, Florida's Republican Legislature forced the change against the objections of the State DNC. Those 1,749,000 voters were dispossesed by factors beyond their control. Personally, caucuses leave the taste of shit in my mouth to begin with. Go to the DNC website and look at how those people are selected. I don't know how you feel, buI really don't want some unemployed ditch digger from across the track voting for me.

After the 2000 and 2004 general elections and the associated dirty deals and slimy tactics (Can you say "Chad?") the Bush people used to "win" then, I don't trust anyone to vote for me in either a General or Primary Election. If the Congressional Election Commission wants to say, "Your vote counts," then it damn well better be true. In the case of, at least, Florida, it obviously doesn't count.

 

[sr71plt]

Again (and again) Voters cannot be dispossessed by a party primary. The parties have no obligation whatsoever to follow any primary poll results--or to even contest in a primary in any state. The reason they do participate in a primary is to get the voters engaged. That's not a problem here.

It's a no win situation on the Florida and Michigan primaries. Voters were told beforehand their votes wouldn't result in delegates, so the primaries will be claimed to be patently unfair by the Obama folks if the votes are accepted--with every justification. Given that there is no chance of being "fair" (again, not that this is a requirement), sticking with the rules and stated consequences is the least bad route--and the only one that would have a chance of keeping this from happening in the future.

Please drop the "dispossessed" and "disenfrancised" rhetoric. It's bogus.

There's no "fair" solution to this issue. If there's no clear-cut winner before the convention because the Florida and Michigan votes aren't included, the convention will be brokered and you can bet those votes will be considered fully by the big daddies/mommas making the decisions--as they have every right to do--(and you can bet it will go Clinton's way and the Obama people will be screaming about that too).

And then, either way it goes, Clinton and Obama will make kissy, kissy and go out and campaign hard for whatever Democratic ticket there is.

This is not a voter "rights" issues. Until there is a national ballot, any consideration the parties give to indiviual voters on who gets on that ballot is all window dressing, getting-out-vote tactics. The voters have no rights on who a party choses to run.

Any use of the word "rights" is way off base here.

(and guess what. When we get to the December electoral college, the electors can vote for whoever they damn well want too--the voters be damned. And on a few occasions they've done just that.)

 

[Zeb_Carter]

And don't forget about all those super-delegates that aren't dividy up by the primaries.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think they should just move on. I think they knew going in that they were breaking the rules, and as such they should just man up and take the consequences.

 

[sr71plt]

And don't forget about all those super-delegates that aren't dividy up by the primaries.

I don't resent the superdelegate structure either. These are the folks who have to do the heavy lifting in getting their party folks elected. Giving their voice this weight is just reality in keeping them working (and it's a sliding back for them in power, anywhere--until recent decades, these were the folks who would have made all of the decisions).

The Democrats aren't the only ones with superdelegates--although they have the biggest proportion of them, by far. Every member of the RNC gets his/her own full delegate vote.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Voters are idgits. Thats why Democrats have superdelgates. The folks saddled the Democrats with McGovern and Carter, and the grownups created superdelegates.

But McCain is as good as elected, if you think about Hillary's issue of experience. She cant even link him to Bush.

 

[cantdog]

Jenny, don't they get to seat their delegates at the Convention anyway? And those delegates would be free to vote as they pleased?