Disenfranchised in FL and MI?? Can someone explain to me

[shadowrider]

Why this wasn't a huge issue immediately AFTER the decision was made to not count the delegates MONTHS ago?? Why was it ignored until AFTER the primaries? (Before you say it wasn't, please reference threads specifically stating the voters would be disenfranchised if their votes didn't count). I'd be interested to see if any exist.

Just askin because I'm tired of people screaming about it now. Where were you before?

[LostInAnomie]

1. Because Hillary hadn't won them yet.

That's pretty much the only answer.

[mudesi]

2. The only people "screaming" about it are Hillary Clinton and her supporters (nm)

[MonkeyFunk]

3. Nope

I see plenty of people screaming to disenfranchise them, too.

I'm amazed to see it on a democratic board. And all to protect a system that people hate - the primacy of New Hampshire and Iowa.

I guarantee if the states involved were Illinois and Georgia, you'd see some very different positions taken here.

[sandnsea]

4. It went to court, Florida lost

This was all agreed on at the time. ALL the candidates agreed that the delegates wouldn't be seated, there would be no campaigning in Florida, and that they would take their names off the ballot in Michigan. At the last minute, Hillary didn't take her name off the MI ballot. I think she knew she wouldn't abide by the agreement at the time.

Sure enough, when it became clear she would need these delegates, she decided to change the rules.

It's disgusting.

[nomorewhopper]

5. it was a birdbrain move by the dem leadership in Mich and Fla to try...

...to gain prominent media exposure for their states in choosing the candidate.

i think that both states have great cases to be made since they have a fairly representative, large population. BUT, these elections are handled with specific rules, and these Mich and Fla leaders violated those rules. You can't just set an election whenever you'd like, no matter what your reasons.

So as punishment, these states were not going to have their delegates counted.

Instead of backing down, it's obvious that the leadership birdbrains thought that the added early exposure was more important that actually giving their people a chance to vote in a real election. It's also obvious that these states certainly did not expect that the later elections would be meaningful. In the past, if you didn't have a NH or Iowa date, your election was meaningless. The states urged their voters to come to the polls anyways basically to have an opportunity to influence the nation. But without active campaigning combined with a "why would i even waste my time" component, it's clear that many voters decided to stay home.

But the decision came back to bite them in the ass, and I hope it stings.

Regardless, counting these votes would be a huge injustice, and would only compound the injustice of holding a fraud of an election.