Dean urges do-over voting in Fla., Mich.

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged Florida and Michigan party officials to come up with plans to repeat their presidential nominating contests so that their delegates can be counted.

"All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they'll be seated," Dean said during a round of interviews Thursday on network and cable TV news programs.

The two state parties will have to find the funds to pay for new contests without help from the national party, Dean said.

"We can't afford to do that. That's not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race," he said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

[Kittycat]

1. Go Dean!

I'm all for this. Make it fit within the context of the rules, and let's go.

[joeybee12]

2. They need to do something, especially in FL, a swing state...can't

piss off the voters there because it could be pivotal in the GE. Sounds like Howard has eased his "no freaking way" will they be seated stance.

[Colobo]

3. Go Dean! Go Dean!

[Colobo]

6. Let's have a caucus down here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Let's Have A Re-Match With The Same Rules As The First Match

I'm sure when Mayweather and DeLahoya have their re-match it won't be bare fisted...

[Frances]

4. The do-over seems like a good idea to me.

What are the cons to doing this?

[NightWatcher]

8. time and money

this would take time and cost each campaign a ton of cash.

I dont know how ready the candidates campaigns are to invade a huge state like Florida. I am sitting in South Georgia and am waiting for the word to join up with the Florida campaign. I will even volunteer to lead the Key West for Obama group.

[Larkspur]

5. The states, not the DNC, should pay for it because they broke the rules

[RoadRage]

7. That is completely fair... why would anyone oppose it?

Ohh.. because I don't think Clinton will do quite as well the 2nd time around - at least in Florida. But, who knows.. i may be wrong.

[joeybee12]

10. I think you are wrong...I think HRC was pushing for the delegates to

be seated because she knew the best she would get is a do-over in states where she'll do well the second time...it's called negotiating, and you don't give away what you really want right away...you ask for more.

[Redbear]

19. The Clinton camp appears to be on board

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/03/05/ap4737464.html

[Bread and Circus]

9. I'm from Michigan, Bring It ON!

[blogslut]

11. Howard, you are good

:)

[4themind]

12. Dean "laying da law down"-nt

[suston96]

13. Why cannot there be a convention in each state that accepts the election results......

....and pass those state convention decisions onto the DNC? Not in the rules? So what? It would still be the will of the members of the party in each state.

[bellasgrams]

14. They've already voted, no need to revote. The people voted

not knowing if they're votes would count or not but they voted. There is no need for a revote. BO was the first one to tell them that if he won he would get their delegates counted. There are alot of retirees in FL chances are the results would be the same. If they could prove that several hundred people didn't vote this year as in past years I could see it. But I've heard nothing from the media to indicate a lack of voting for president in this election. No need to spend the money without a strong case showing that large numbers of people didn't vote.

[redqueen]

16. You've heard nothing from the media about it?

Do you think that means it didn't happen?

It did. Lots of people in FL are pissed about this, because they didn't bother voting. FL's republican tool of a governor was on TV this morning claiming that their record numbers show that everyone who wanted to has voted. That's utter horseshit. He has a vested interest in making sure the outcome favors McCain's chances. So it's really no surprise at all that he'd rather not have a re-vote.

[RoadRage]

18. Yup.. and do you notice

how the polls put Obama & Clinton about 30 points apart before he actually shows up and campaigns.. then all of a sudden it's a total horse race?

So yes, people voted.. but they didn't get to hear Obama's side of the story. He's always the underdog until people have a chance to see him...

And please don't bring up the 4 commercials on Fox & Cnn during that time.. that's not campaigning. His ground game is amazing - and that wasn't in Florida.

If Hillary won the first time, why is she afraid to do it again? Why does she want these votes without a re-vote? Because she KNOWS the outcome will change. She might win.. but as in OH/TX - only a couple of delegates.. not the mountain she cheated herself into. And she needs the whole mountain to have a shot at winning.

[4themind]

20. It's an interesting debate

"They've already voted, no need to revote" The questions are what did they vote for, and how that should be addressed going into the future. According to the DNC (by the rules section, and which prior court precedent suggests they (DNC) have a degree of autonomy over processing) they voted under the existence of the rule(and is my understanding was approved by the respective state parties) that no delegates would be recognized from their vote (if they occurred before Feb 5th) at the time that they voted. That CAN be changed as you've noted, but again the question is SHOULD they be changed/redecided and/or how

It seems to me that the rationale for what SHOULD be done, depend in part upon which tenants one holds higher than others. Ie I would guess (I may be wrong) that many democrats ,based upon the Gore/bush situation in florida, believe,among other things, that

1.)People should not be hindered from by an government from voting (people may define this widely of course)
2.)Additionally, (you may not agree with this) when they do vote, they should have available information on the rules(and the consequences of breaking them, from the legally agreed to recognized processors at the convention). Also these rules should be made available beforehand and should not be changed/redecided AFTER the vote.(Whether there is "sufficient" documentation of this influencing voter behavior or not)*

-Having the delegates not be seated would seem to violate the first "belief" (although some may argue that that they did "vote" ie in a "straw poll" like fashion just)
-Having the delegates be seated would seem to violate the second, because the voters would have had the affect of their vote (as defined and processed via the DNC, changed after the electoral process(let's say the process ends at the convention)
-While having a revote would arguably violate the second belief (ie those voting who WANT their vote not to translate to delegates) you could argue that the old vote won't count, but a new one will, but definitions will vary on that I concede and this whole thing is one fine mess I might add.

There may very well be other tenants that individuals may have that they hold higher than these(money issues which can be debated), however I'd be interested in hearing what they are and your reasons for your relative ranking of them .

P.S. *Just to add a third tenant, that candidates should have the right to refuse accepting a job that they were voted in for(just to tidy up my thoughts a bit)

[redqueen]

15. Let the state party pay for it.

They decided to screw things up for themselves... let them clean up their own mess.