Rules are Rules - and I'll respect them

[Tom Rinaldo]

The DNC has rules regarding their decision about Michigan and Florida, and they also have rules that say how to appeal their rulings on Michigan and Florida. Each State decided in advance how they would choose their delegates to the Democratic Convention - some use caucuses and some use primaries. Super Delegates were given a role in our nominating convention decades ago by the DNC, and there are ways for Democrats, working through our own State parties, to alter or reverse that decision. Up until now no one made any real effort to do so.

Some activists have a real problem with the influence Super Delegates will have in picking our nominee. Some have a real problem with the influence multiple caucuses, that do not use secret ballots and which are only open for a few fixed hours for voters to participate in, will have in picking our nominee. And it is tragic if the voters in Florida and Michigan end up having no say in who our nominee is. No doubt however that is decided it will be controversial.

But we are selecting our nominee using sets of rules that all parties to this process knew in advance. If we don't like 'em we should work to change 'em, but these are the rules we have now. In the case of Michigan and Florida the ultimate jury is still out, but at some point a decision will be made.

Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will have done so playing by the rules as written. I will fully support our Democratic nominee, even if I don't fully respect some of the rules that may help him or her win that nomination.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

1. Well said. We are a country of laws (and rules)

You don't change the rules halfway through because it will benefit someone you like.

[chimpymustgo]

2. Good post, Tom. We need to take a serious look at the use of caucuses.

They're antiquated and undemocratic. But we'll have to live with them for this time. I am strongly opposed to Michigan and Florida have "do-over" caucuses.

Maybe someone could put together a good poll of what DU'ers think should be done about the 2 states.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. My own half baked idea for Michigan and Florida

which I have no idea if it could be arranged under "the rules", would be to award half their delegates based on the primaries already held, and to schedule a new caucus for each state which will allot the other half of their delegates.

In a practical sort of way it makes sense to me. In reality Obama has done very well in general under the caucus system - even though he likely would have won many if not all of his caucus state victories were primaries held instead, I think in some cases the margin would have been meaningfully tighter between him and Clinton were they primaries instead. Meanwhile Clinton made out well with the results of the primaries that already happened in those states. In my opinion, if Florida in particular, you can't just scrap the results of 1.5 million Democrats voting and replace them with the results from a caucus which almost certainly only a small fraction of that many voters would attend.

Anyway, that's my suggestion for a compromise

[Hutzpa]

26. Ok Tom, Heres a question for ya.......

What do you think about holding another caucuses for MI and FL?

If not, why should Hillary be allowed to fight for these states
delegates knowing fully what the rules are?

If Hillary wants the party to sit these delegates, then IMO
they should hold caucuses wherein Obama, Edwards and Hillary
can be on the ballot. They should be allowed to campaign
in these states. Winner takes all

anything other than that would be a FARCE or TRAVESTY

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. My feelings about Florida are stronger than my feelings about Michigan

All of our candidates were not on the ballot in Michigan. If you can guarentee a Florida caucus in which 1.5 million people take part, I can go with that.

Here is a question for you. A lot of people don't realize this, but Washington State will be holding a primary in a couple of weeks, even though the delegates were chosen at a caucus. Far more people are expected to vote in Washington's primary than turned out for the Washington caucuses. If Hillary does much better in the primary voting than she did in the caucuses, should she be given more of Washington's delegates?

[Hutzpa]

34. I'm not aware of Washington's primary

IMO thats like changing the rules as we go along, do whatever it takes to
get the candidate we want, fuck what the people think.

Aren't these the very same values we're fighting against the Republicans,
here we are implying these same methods within the Democratic party. What
makes us different from the Republicans?

How long can we keep this going? I guess until Hillary wins, people talk
of conventional wisdom, heres one, What if, Hillary has been the one with more
states and delegates won, would we be in this position, that we are in today?

Would we be looking forward to states as far away as Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania?

Obama has won more states than Hillary, has more delegates than Hillary, yet people are
still saying it not enough to get him the nomination.

So what happens when he wins Texas and Ohio, we keep going, the people have
spoken, but yet, its not enough, when are you people gonna get it, people
are just pissed and fed up with the same ol crap day in and day out,
hearing the same spin.

ITS ABOUT TIME WE STOP THIS MADNESS, AND BECOME THE PARTY WE STAND FOR

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. I don't think Washington's primary results should change the delegates

The rules are clear; I am just pointing out that the "high moral ground" is not always so clear cut.

But I think you are making some unfocused accusations. I seriously doubt Clinton has any chance to win the nomination if she doesn't win at least 2 out of 3 of the remaining largest states; Texa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. We keep going until someone wins a majority of the delegates, same as always. If Clinton doesn't do well at the end not only will Obama clearly have the most pledged delegates, but there will be no reasonable basis for a majority of super delegates not to back him either. If Clinton cleans up at the end, she then will have a strong case to make, and likely will have won the popular vote also.

[theHandpuppet]

4. I'm really torn on this

It seems the rules keep changing, or they aren't consistent, or not consistently enforced, or different groups abide by different sets of rules.

Even though I am currently a supporter of Hillary's campaign (though if Edwards were still in the running he'd be my choice!) and I know some of the rules might benefit her, I simply can't rationalize this concept of "superdelegates". How can this be possibly be part of a democratic process?

On the other hand, because the party chairs in Florida and Michigan fucked up, how can one rationalize disenfranchising all the voters in those states for circumstances beyond their control? That's not fair, either.

Seems to me that our election process is a real mess and needs a serious overhaul.

[malletgirl02]

5. Yes

great post. Having a viable stable democracy is more than just voting. It is about the process, and what goes about the process is the willingness to adhere to the rules.

[suston96]

6. Sorry, you miss the point....

Once a political party enrolls its rank and file as the electors of their nominees, directly or through delegates, it must follow the laws regarding equal voting rights for all.

Rules regarding those electors must be the same for ALL members of the party. Consider a political party making a rule that only members with red hair and freckles can vote in primaries. Silly? Sure it is. Because it violates the equal rights of its members.

Leave your blind partisanship for your candidate outside the room and consider this with fairness and equity for all.

Gee, that almost sounds democratic......?

[chimpymustgo]

8. And your non-blind partisan solution is...?

Thanks.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Try that again with specifics please

Is there a rule that only members with red hair and freckles can vote? Not the last time that I checked but if there is I will pledge to help change it.

So what exactly are you complaining about? Could you leave whatever it is that you have that lets you cast sweeping judgments about others aside, please?

Are you saying I am a blind partisan perhaps? Your writing style makes it hard for me to be sure what you are saying here. If you assume I am a blind partisan what makes you assume I am being blind?

[suston96]

15. You are supporting what is good for your candidate....nothing wrong with that...

...but you ignore the principle that all votes must be counted.

If political parties decide that rank and file members of the party will equally appoint their delegates, then those elections must be fair and equal in ALL states.

This tantrum by the Democratic Party leaders over primary dates is pure bullshit! If Iowa and New Hampshire can have early primaries by their own choices then ANY state should be able to do the same.

And whenever that happens, then ALL votes by Democrats must be counted and delegates allocated equally and fairly to the intended nominees.

Over 2 million Democrats voted in those two primaries. Maybe more. Think about that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Since I am supporting Clinton

what would be "good for my candidate" would be to demand that the delegates from those two states be seated. I may fall short, but I am trying to be as objective as I am capable of being here. The argument you gave is one I am sure that the delegates to the Democratic Convention will be asked to consider if some mutually agreed upon resolution to this controversy isn't worked out before then.

[Arkansas Granny]

19. If all the states could set the dates for their own primaries, we would

really see a scramble as they each tried to be the first. If the current rules need to be changed, so be it, but there will still be a need for rules. Michigan and Florida both decided to hold their primaries early even knowing that the consequence would be that their delegates would be stripped. It's unfortunate for the voters, but when rules are broken, there has to be accountability.

[suston96]

24. Terrific....then that will easily lead to a national primary (elimination) day/weekend.

....followed by a general election to pick the winners. You know, like happens in newer, third world, clearly backward democracies where they don't even have electoral colleges. God help them.....!

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. No more Jimmy Carters under a system like that

No more Howard Dean's either - because the only way Dean got to be taken seriously at all was by devoting himself intitially to making a reputation for himself early in the small early states that gave him a media spotlight of sorts ONLY because they were early states.

If we have a national primary day it will all be about expensive national media from day one, non establishment candidates need not apply.

[suston96]

27. A guy in Texas decided to run for office with a promise that he would spend not a nickel.....

...on advertising. He painted a sign on his pick-up truck and that was it.

He won the primary and then the general. Never spent a nickel in advertising. The media picked up on his efforts and that is how he won.

I guess you are right. He was definitely non-establishment and the media reluctantly helped him along.

We are better off with phony democratic caucuses and programmed pre-emptive primaries. They work so well.

Uh, Howard Dean and Jimmy Carter were both governors of their states and got national attention some 22 milliseconds after they announced for the presidency.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Every previously elected Democrat who declares for President

who held a statewide or national office gets some national attention some 22 milliseconds after they announce for President, the trouble is for some of them it also lasts for 22 milliseconds while for others it lasts for 22 months - unless something happens to shake up the media script.

[Sparkly]

7. I agree.

I don't like the whole concept of superdelegates, but those are, and have been, the rules. I actually don't think they'll go against the majority anyway, but could break a virtual tie.

Like the electoral college, the rule is there until it looks like it could make a difference, and then we all go, "What the heck?! That's a bad rule!!"

[pampango]

10. I agree with everything, except I would include the Michigan/Florida

debacle in the "Rules are Rules" category, since all the candidates agreed last year that no delegates would come from those primaries. This became part of the "sets of rules that all parties to this process knew in advance".

I agree that many things need to be worked on before the next election cycle.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. I understand about Florida and Michigan

But there actually are prescribed rules that do establish who ultimately decides what delegates do and do not get accepted at the Democratic Convention. The DNC has always anticipated the possibility for delegate challenges and it empowers the seated delegates to the Democratic National Convention as the ulitimate Court of Appeal in all instances.

[pampango]

16. I realize that the convention can decide whom to seat

and that deciding to seat them would be "legal" according to the rules. I suppose that the ultimate "rule" is that the convention can decide to modify certain "rules" that the candidates had understood and agreed to before campaigning began.

That is true and I don't envy the SDs and others the responsibility of balancing the morality of "disenfranchising" Michigan and Florida voters, the ethics of changing agreed upon rules after the fact, and the political reality of the importance of those two states in the GE.

[indimuse]

11. Sorry for being redundant..but. Trying to make a point about Obama's stand

WHEN it benefits HIM!1996..election..AND he had extended access to ballot boxes...WHAT?


Please read the articles...gives you a glimps into his ruthless soul...IMO!


"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled.
"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled.
"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled.





http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/cnn-political-ticker-am_04.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story

It was in this part of the city that an eager reform Democrat by the name of Abner Mikva first entered elected office in the 1950s. And here a young, brash minister

named Jesse Jackson ran Operation Breadbasket, leading marchers who sought to pressure grocery chains to hire minorities.

Palmer served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was

growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and

interviews.

But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her

state Senate seat.

Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.

"I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant," Obama said. "It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently."

His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists.

"There was friction about the decision he made," said City Colleges of Chicago professor emeritus Timuel Black, who tried to negotiate with Obama on Palmer's

behalf. "There were deep disagreements."

Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. Palmer's elimination marked the first of

several fortuitous political moments in Obama's electoral success: He won the 2004 primary and general elections for U.S. Senate after tough challengers imploded

when their messy divorce files were unsealed.

In a recent interview, Obama granted that "there's a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn't create barriers to people getting on the ballot."

But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents' signature sheets. "To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. I really was trying to keep the actual candidates out of this discussion

There are numerous DU threads where one or another candidate gets taken to task for how they play the game of politics.

[Tatiana]

13. The FL and MI delegates should NOT be seated if there isn't a re-vote.

Any candidate that gets the nomination because of delegates from those states would be illegitimate, IMO and cause a party split.

However, superdelegates have been around for a while now and I haven't seen anyone complaining until now. Let them vote the way they want to.

[ozone_man]

17. We live in a nation of laws.

And many of those laws are made by the individual states. Many states choose to use caucuses and many choose to use primaries.

The DNC makes the overall rules, which Michigan and Florida chose to break knowing what the consequence would be.

Regarding super delegates, I think they will follow the choice made by pledged delegates. A ratification of sorts.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. In my own case I am not pleased with the role played by caucuses

I think that caucuses are inherently more likely to produce a distorted picture of the true feelings of the entire qualified electorate than primaries tend to do, and that to me is a fundamentally flawed process when measured by Democratic standards. I wrote more about that in this thread, using Ron Paul as a case study:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4512057&mesg_id=4512057


But the bottom line is that caucuses are the official and legal vehicle for alloting Democratic delegates in a significant number of States this year and all parties knew the rules in advance, so they are just as "valid" as the primaries are for this campaign.

[abburdlen]

20. If only

we could here both campaigns say the same thing!
I don't think either side is acting in bad faith but as the contests go on it's bound to get more divisive.
A close win for either side is going to leave a number of people with the perception that it wasn't fairly decided. I hope for the sake of the party, both camps will publicly address their understanding of the nomination rules and can come to an agreement.

[elocs]

21. Yes, rules are rules. You change them before or after, not during.

I believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that political parties are private entities and can make their own rules. Where was this outcry before the primary season began?

Early on most thought there would be a clear winner by Super Tuesday. It's like NASCAR (I don't claim to know much about NASCAR, but enough). It has it rules established and just because a certain track does not like those rules they are not free to change them without the risk of sanctions by NASCAR. Just because you thought there would be a clear winner at the end does not mean in the middle of the race that you get to have them run an extra lap just because the race is close.

[elixir]

22. Well done, Tom. I agree, this will play out according to the rules. I do believe that caucuses

provide an unfair venue by which to make your voice heard.

[incapsulated]

30. I agree in general, although I would prefer...

The Florida and Michigan voters get a say in this before we go to super delegates.

[Jed Dilligan]

31. I think that if the popular vote and the supers are much at odds,

it is perfectly legitimate for the grassroots to apply some sort of pressure, whether in the form of petitions, letter-writing campaigns, or outright protests at the convention.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. I agree with you on that

Lobbying isn't against any rules and protest is a protected constitutional right.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. Self Delete. Double post n/t