What should justly happen with FL and MI? (forget logistics)

[Tektonik]

Poll question: What should justly happen with FL and MI? (forget logistics)

[Clintonista2]

1. DUers are for disenfranchising voters, as long as it isn't them.

Sad.

[Tektonik]

4. Hopefully this poll will disprove that

But there are definitely way too many here who believe disenfranchisement is not a serious issue.

[skipos]

9. Let me get this straight

Everyone tells the state of MI that their vote isn't going to count.
We have an election that, like Washington's primary, we are lead to believe will mean nothing.
Now that Hillary Inc. has little hope of winning the pledged delegates, she wants the MI election to count?

You think THAT sounds fair?

Are you for making the Washington primary count as well?

[high density]

19. Clinton supporters want to change the rules mid game

All candidates knew what they were getting into.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

24. LOL DUers ok with having 'elections' with only one person on the ticket

Sad.

[Clintonista2]

25. Both candidates were on the ballot in Florida

Are you ok with that?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

27. I *might* be able to stomach a state

in which candidates were forbidden from campaigning but a revote is *clearly* the better option..

[Tarc]

2. If these two critical states are ignored, the Democratic nominee will LOSE the general election

McCain will be hammering either Obama or Clinton over disenfranchised voters.

[Selatius]

3. There's got to be a compromise. You can't break rules, but you shouldn't disenfranchise voters.

Do like the Republicans did in Michigan and cut the number of delegates they offer by half. That way, they remaining delegates are apportioned by percentage won, but the delegate count is half. I dunno, decide it by having a re-run of the race if it isn't too expensive, but when it comes to asking the will of the people, democracy, nothing is too expensive, except our current campaign system.

[Tektonik]

8. Well then have a re-vote then

They broke the rules by having their primaries too early, so why not vote right now?

Also I think penalizing in any way is not the right thing to do. Their votes should count fully.

[Exilednight]

36. Who's going to pay for it? It costs at least ten million dollars to hold a state wide vote in Fl

[Selatius]

50. I dunno, tell the legislators to take a pay cut to pay for it.

They used taxpayer dollars to change the laws and ran the elections early. They should give it back by paying it back for a new election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. New Primaries

The person who gets the most pop votes in MI and FL gets the nomination...

Win or go home...

[mmonk]

6. A revote if people are honest.

[THUNDER HANDS]

7. they should get half the delegates each

seat them, but with no winner.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. They should both be seated as is

[THUNDER HANDS]

11. you CAN'T do that

what would stop any state from jumping ahead of Iowa next season?

What would stop, say, California from moving their primary to January 2nd, ahead of everyone else? the DNC could punish them, order candidates not to campaign there - but they'd have to anyway because if they don't, whatever the results are would eventually count.

and the DNC would be a toothless organization - and the DNC *IS* the democratic party. Which would mean the candidates themselves think they're bigger than the party.

that can't happen.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. I don't give a fuck

if anyone jumps ahead Iowa. I truly, sincerely don't. It was stupid to punish states to protect the idiotic system. But, the fact is, Iowa DID go first this year, so nobody was harmed by FL and MI moving their date up.

[THUNDER HANDS]

17. you don't care about the party?

the party is at stake here. Candidates have to know they're not ABOVE the party. They run under the banner of the party, not anove it.

[durrrty libby]

30. This wasn't about the Democratic Party. This was about the repub legislature and repub gov.

Dems had no choice.

The votes should count and the delegates be seated. Period

[THUNDER HANDS]

38. and in Michigan?

[HooptieWagon]

44. WTF? Educate yourself - Go read madfloridian's journal

Stop repeating lies. A Dem introduced the legislation moving up the FL primary. It passed 115-1, only one Dem voted against. Fl Dem Party elite (all DLCers), notably state Party Chair Karen Thurman and Sen Bill Nelson, embraced the plan, despite warnings from the DNC. The FL Dem Party wasn't forced into this situation by the Reps, IT WAS THEIR FREAKIN' IDEA AND THEY WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORTED IT!!!!

[Hugabear]

18. So it's perfectly okay that Hillary was the only candidate on the Michigan ballot?

Well, the only "major" one that is.

It's okay that Obama, Edwards, and others pulled their names off the ballot in support of the DNC's decision?

I suppose it's also okay that Hillary was able to coast to an easy win in Florida based on her name recognition alone, with none of the candidates doing any active campaigning in this state?

I do not understand why so many people think it's perfectly okay to change the rules DURING the contest.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. They chose to take their names off

to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire. Nobody made them do it. They chose to for their own political reasons.

But I feel less strongly about Michigan than I do Florida. 1.7 million Democrats voted in Florida, and every candidate was on the ballot. It was record turnout - more than twice that of 2004. To me, that's a valid referendum.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

26. The were running as members of a party which said

that MI and FLA were in the wrong...

[MonkeyFunk]

28. So?

My point is very simple - if those delegates matter in determining the outcome, a resolution WILL be found. Simply disenfranchising two important states is just not an option.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

51. I agree

Hold a revote! but the calls to seat as is (to give the voters a voice) are completely disingenuous..

Were the tables turned and Obama was the winner of Florida I very seriously doubt the Hill bots would be pushing for 'as is' seating..

[Apollo11]

32. You have a point

Edwards and Obama were hoping that voters in Iowa and NH would reward them for defending these 2 states' traditional privileges and refusing to participate in the "renegade" contests in Florida and Michigan.

[Cass]

23. Something like 12% of Iowa voters participated in their caucuses.

After hearing that I couldn't care less if another state jumps ahead of Iowa.

Nearly 2 million dems in Florida came out to vote and their votes should count. They should not be disenfranchised because of party squabbling.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. New Primaries In Both States

The winner of the pop vote is the nominee...The loser goes home...

[cali]

16. That's not going to happen.

I can state that with complete assurance. No way Dean will let it. And no, it's not about his ego or favoring Obama over Clinton. If Dean thinks he's right about something, he will never let it go. He was my governor for 11 years, and that is one thing that all Vermonters know; the guy sticks to his principles. And this is a matter of principle to him. Having said that, I do think he'll work on a solution that will be accepted by all- perhaps seating half of Florida's delegates or do overs. He will not seat them as is and Hillyworld won't be able to accomplish it. Best for its denizens to get used to that.

[sabbat hunter]

20. in michigan

Obama wasn't even on the ballot. How unfair is that?

Clinton was the only major candidate to keep her name on the ballot in MI.

[shaniqua6392]

41. Obama and Edwards took their names off the ballot in MI

but not in Florida. Why? They did not need to do it at all. They were pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire. Clinton should get her votes and Obama can have the uncommitted votes. Or cut them all in half. Whatever they want to do is fine with me as long as they count our votes. We are being disenfranchised!!

[Uben]

14. A simple revote would be best

Let the people speak! They vote and pay taxes just like the rest of us. Why should their vote not count?

Obama fans don't want their votes to count because Clinton will win both, hands down, and this would most likely force the super delegates to switch to her in favor of party unity. Any win without every vote counting is not a win, as we all have been saying since the vote of 2000. Count every vote, every time, no matter the outcome.

[iamjoy]

15. Compromise

A re-vote probably would be best, but it is impractical at this point and may lead voters to be confused and/or feel betrayed. Allowing the delegates to be seated with no punishment is not fair and will only encourage more anarchy in the process in the future. Not seating the delegates at all may be "just" (the states did break the rules) but is not the way to win in November.

So, try another compromise. One poster suggested cutting the delegate count in half - this could be done literally, or the delegates could each have half a vote.

Another compromise owuld be to seat the delegation, but as non-voting delegates - kind of like Ms. Holmes-Norton in Congress. Welcome the delegations as guests who can come to all the events and give input, but not vote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Why Are New Primaries Out Of The Question?

That seems to me to be the most equitable solution since the voters of MI and FL didn't do anything that would justify their disenfranchisement...

[iamjoy]

53. I Never Said Out Of The Question

I said new primaries would be impractical, but I wouldn't rule them out. They would be impractical because people have already voted - if you tell them to vote again, they might be annoyed. Furthermore, the Florida Democratic Party has already had caucuses to pick the delegates. You can call that a dumb move, but hey, it's not like the party has never made dumb moves before. So now, what if some one who was elected as a delegate the first go round isn't for the revote?

Also, who is going to pay for it?

So, on the surface this does seem the most fair solution. It is also the least practical.

[KaryninMiami]

29. I'm in Florida and either we get a re-vote or they CANNOT count our votes

Rules are rules. We were thrown under the bus by the Florida Democratic party (Hillary supporters) who went along with the GOP legislature thinking the party would change their minds and seat the delegates anyway- because they knew that if they got seated, they votes would be for Hillary. We voted after being told our votes would not count- many did not vote at all. We had a big turnout because of a tax referendum on that same ballot- not because of the primary.

Furthermore, she actually broke the rules by campaigning here before the primary -they called it a fund-raising event which is total bullshit. There was media, there were crowds, there was television coverage- call it what you want - she broke the rules. Period.

We need a re-vote-- or a caucus - it needs to be a fair contest, where both candidates have a chance to campaign here and let the residents get to know them up close and personal- just like all of the other primary states had. Either that, or they cannot- and had better not, count our delegates.

In MI she was the only candidate on the ballot- how fair is it to count those votes? Give me a break.

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

[durrrty libby]

31. Stop with the "rules are rules" bullshit. Kowtowing to the repub gov

and legislature is idiotic.

[KaryninMiami]

33. Agreed- but that's what the FL Dem. leaders did.They refused help from the DNC-

so they took it into their own hands and drove our right to have our votes count in Florida, directly under the bus. We would have been happy to wait and have a caucus later on. They didn't even fight- they simply gave in since they knew that if the delegates did get counted, the vote would be for Clinton just because of the name recognition. WE voted knowing our votes would not count- had I been told they were going to count, I would have voted differently and many more would have gone to the polls.

We need a re-vote or a caucus. Either is fine with me. But they had better not count those votes as is now thereby disenfranchising every Florida voter (except the Clinton voters that is who are demandng they get seated).

[HooptieWagon]

46. how is introducing legislation and voting 115-1 "kow-towing"?

[jefferson_dem]

34. Seat the delegtions...

Only with no controlling authority over who gets the nomination.

[rug]

35. Seat them all but no vote on the first ballot.

If no candidate gets a maority on the first ballot from those delegates that followed the rules, then let them vote. Pledged delegates are not bound after the first round anyway.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

37. no revote in FL.....MI maybe...Obama chose to remove his name from the ballot

[Hugabear]

40. Bullshit

Treat BOTH states the same. Either a) count them both, b) do not count them at all, or c) have both states do a new primary or caucus.

Do you have any idea how it would look if Michigan got to have a revote, but not Florida? Do appearances mean anything to you? Or is anything fair as long as it benefits your candidate?

[KaryninMiami]

43. How is that fair- that FL counts after being told it wouldn't and MI gets a revote?

Obama took his name off the ballot because that was the deal- no delegates- no names on the ballot. Hillary chose to ignore the rule- as she did in Florida where her people (major FL Dems) went along with the GOP legislature- AGAINST ADVICE OF THE DNC AND AFTER BEING WARNED THAT THE VOTES WOULD NOT COUNT.

How pathetic that the voters, who were totally innocent here in that neither state had a choice-- get disenfranchised by their own party.

Either neither gets counted or they both get a re-vote or they both get caucus.

[Sparkly]

39. That's becoming an important question now!

I really don't have a good answer. I guess a re-vote makes sense if need be, but it seems like an awkward solution, too.

The DNC must be grappling with this. I'm sure they never imagined it would be so close that it would matter so much.

[KamaAina]

42. Is a re-vote (an actual election) even possible?

The idea of holding caucuses in the two states would sidestep that, though party leaders in both are decidedly cool to the idea.

Another possibility is to seat both delegations as Uncommitted. Uncommitted actually drew over 30% of the vote in MI!

The one thing we must NOT do is (further) disenfranchise the two important swing states, thus giving McCrazy and the repukes a mighty club to wield over us. Time for Howard Dean to do his job!

edit: spelling

[Bucky]

48. The Florida governor has said it's feasible.

And as for Michigan... well, Michigan doesn't count.

[HooptieWagon]

45. Start with FL should lose its SDs

Since they were the ones who planned this. Then we can talk about counting votes.

[Bucky]

47. It's not *actually* a re-vote, per se. The elections they held weren't authorized.

It would certainly make things more interesting and more fair than a simple delegate fight would be.

[LostinVA]

49. Count Florida, and either don't count Michigan OR have a new primary

I personally think the Washington State primary should count, too.

[Strawman]

52. There should be a revote in MI. Not familiar enough with FL to say

But it is unlikely we will have a revote in MI.

The reason we are in this mess is because campaign surrogates for Clinton and Edwards played a game of brinksmanship over whether or not to hold a caucus on an acceptable date in Feb. or March once it became clear that nobody was going to campaign here in January. Edwards people (Bonior people) wanted a caucus where labor would dominate and Clinton people (the Gov. and Debbie Dingell) wanted a primary. Others figured we had nothing to lose because the whole thing would be decided by Super Tuesday and the delegates wouldn't matter, so they chose to take a stand against the unfair system of Iowa and NH going first ever time (Levin).

The first two groups put gamesmanship over the best interests of rank and file primary/caucus voters and the last group completely miscalculated. We should do what we tell other countries who have run a corrupt election to do: do it over.

But that will never happen. The powers that be in MI are all Clinton hacks and would gain nothing from a do-over with Obama on the ballot. Clinton would get slaughtered in Detroit in a two way contest with Obama and they know it. They make specious arguments about how unfair it would be to throw out votes from an election where I couldn't even vote for Edwards or Obama and nobody besides Dennis Kucinich campaigned here. Rank and file Democrats in MI didn't have a campaign and we didn't have a full range of choices. Nobody with a shred of intellectual honesty can argue that we had a fair primary election. It was a complete and (for some, deliberate) clusterfuck. Now these idiots are forced to make self-assured statements "I'm confident the delegates will be seated" to try and cover the fact that they ran a farce of a primary. Even if those delegates are ultimately seated, that doesn't remedy the fact that they took away our choices and robbed us of a primary campaign in our state because of their fuck up.

On edit: The position among Clinton supporters here in MI seems to be warming to a do-over. See here: http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NEWS15/803050333

I'm sure because her supporters know now that those delegates will not be seated as is (her first choice) and she has to roll the dice and try to win a redo here in MI and in FL to catch Obama in the delegate count. Levin seems to be opposed to a do-over out of sheer stubbornness.

It will be interesting to see how Obama responds. I think he would win in MI in a two-way race, but not by a whole lot. Not sure about FL, guessing HRC would have the edge there, so there is probably some risk of a net loss for him, (when he can probably run out the clock without these states counting) but I think a do-over would be the right thing to do.