What Do You Think Should Be Done About MI & FLA?

[Dinger]

I'm not sure on this one, but whatever the decision, we need to think about future implications.
Let me preface my comments by saying that I'm not nearly as informed as I should be on this issue.
I am a proud Hillary supporter, but I'm trying to think of this as a voter, not as a supporter of a particular candidate.

To "eliminate" Michigan and Florida would be a disaster.
To seat them, would reward the states for not following the rules.
Compromise? I don't know. Ideas?


Serious question. I'm wondering what you think on this. I have read some of the posts, but I try to stay away from the flamey ones. If I get pilled into one of them, I'm afraid I'll break my promise to myself and my fellow DUers to be positive and constructive, even if this is GDP.


O.K., here I go, "click."

[rucky]

1. It had to have been a re-vote.

Any other scenario is sure to do some damage to our party. So now we're just making shit-ade out of shit.

[NightWatcher]

2. do not allow a revote and let the state's voters handle the people who moved the date

by voting them out of state office.

If they get to vote, other states will move up their primaries because they see that there is no punishment for violating the party rules. They knew the rules and broke them.

They cannot seat the delegates. I know people in Florida who did not vote because the DNC said that the vote wouldnt count. To seat those delegates would disenfranchise those people who stayed home.

[DrDan]

8. and exactly why does the DNC need to regulate the date of state primaries

I believe the bluster about an out-of-control primary process is just that - bluster. It is exactly like the reich-wing argument about same-sex marriage - it would lead to marriages between people and their pets. Just fear mongering.

If a state wants to become irrelevant by holding a primary 2 years before a GE - then let them become irrelevant.

Lets bring some sanity here. This is nothing but an attempt on both sides to exert some power.

[ginnyinWI]

25. I agree with you NightWatcher.

If the get rewarded, then other states will also break the rules next time. What good are rules that don't have consequences when broken?

I thought about it like this:
In grade school when kids are lined up to go to recess, and a few of them push to the head of the line, the teacher doesn't just let them stay there. No, they have to go to the end of the line most times. In this case, if there were time for those two states to organize it, making them go last would be a good idea. But there doesn't seem to be time to get anything organized before it would be too late. So maybe they should just be skipped this time, as they were warned would happen.

[AllexxisF1]

30. Exactly.

Local Representatives are who messed up here. You got a beef take it up with them. I live in Florida and I am one of those who stayed home because I knew my vote would not count. I know exactly who is to be blamed for this and it is not the candidates, it's not Howard Dean (God Damn Do I love that man) and not the DNC. This fiasco resides with our local legislature and Floridians like myself should just suck it up.


We will be seated when the nominee is chosen and that is that.


What Hillary is doing is simply hurting the party come the General Election. Because bringing up this whole "You have been disenfranchised" bit is going to be HUGE fodder for McCain and company come November.


She needs to frankly STFU and drop out already...SHE CANNOT WIN.

[bobbert]

33. .

I agree, I think it's amazing that there are finally 48 states + territories who all have a say in what is going on with the primaries rather than it being chosen after the first few states. I think we are missing only a small percentage of the population's votes by not including F+M, and back in January only a few people were making a big stink about it. I think now that the media jumped on it, that it is a big deal but ahead of time voters knew their votes wouldn't count. The election will cost millions, and it should not be privately funded, and Replublican taxpayers will not want to pay for the re-vote. I think the quicker we get a nominee and the debates start bringing forth the issues and people start mentioning Supreme court justices, that this will blow over and the voters will be happy with their Dem. nominee. Dems will rally against McCain and realize that it is the vote in November that is more important.

[Craftsman]

3. If revoting is not an option then sit them

[SIMPLYB1980]

4. Count the votes as cast.

If I am told my vote doesn't count for a primary or the GE I will vote anyway and demand my vote be counted. Anyone that didn't vote has no right to bitch about it because they gave up that right the second they decided not to vote.

[Life Long Dem]

13. The voters had no decision. DNC decided for the voters the votes wouldn't count.

Your method disenfranchises those who did not vote. Whether you go against the rules as well or not.

[SIMPLYB1980]

21. If you are told your vote will not count in a primary or the GE,

will you just say awe fuck it no reason to vote? If so you have given up the only power you have as a US citizen and have no right to complain.

[Life Long Dem]

27. DNC said the vote wouldnt count. And they are not counting. The end.

Break the rules pay the price.

[SIMPLYB1980]

32. Not the end unless you don't consider voting important.

Again if you are told your vote won't count. Will you say fuck it and not vote. I will vote no matter what and demand my vote be counted. You seem to think that voting is a right I say it is a moral obligation, and if you don't vote you have no right to complain.

[davsand]

5. Those states made the decision a long time ago.

When the state parties made the decision to stick a thumb in the DNC's eye the discussion and debate was over for me. If I lived in those states I would be pissed as hell at my state party leadership and I'd be working to get rid of them ASAP. THAT is where the "fault" lies--no place else.



Laura

[Texas Hill Country]

20. no, the politicians made the decision, the people didnt.

[davsand]

37. The voters elected those state party officials.

We get the government we deserve.

State party officials are elected (selected?) at state level and if the voters are unhappy with decisions they make then they need to get them out of office. Those state level officials knew going in that the votes cast in those states were not gonna be accepted by the DNC at the convention--yet those state officials opted to have the states vote early. Voters were not "disenfranchised" by definition because they were allowed to vote. The real problem is that those delegates that were assigned based on the early primaries will not be accepted by the DNC for the convention.

Seems to me that if you want to go to a party you have to play by the house rules. House rules in this case are DNC rules and those rules say the delegates don't count.

:shrug:

Blame rests at the state level, no place else. Florida and Michigan KNEW those primaries were not in compliance with the DNC rules, yet they held early elections anyway.

I know it is wrong according to the rules (laws) to drive over the posted speed limit and if I get a speeding ticket it is MY problem. I'm not seeing how Florida and Michigan can claim their situation with the early primaries is any different.



Laura

[rateyes]

6. I posted yesterday that

Michigan should be seated with 55% of the elected delegates to Clinton and 45% to Obama. In Florida, 50/50 split.

That gives Clinton all the elected delegates she would have gotten because that was the split in those primaries, and it gives Obama a few more than he would get, but pretty close to the totals of a revote in my opinion. Plus, Obama was at a disadvantage in Michigan because he honored the pledge not to participate in the Michigan primary, and neither candidate "campaigned" in Florida (even though Hillary was there for a "fundraiser"--I wonder how that is not considered "campaigning" but, whatever.)

To punish the state parties for breaking the rules, strip them of all their superdelegates, for it was those leaders of the state parties who are to blame for the fiasco in the first place.

[powergirl]

7. 50-50 split

there is no other way for it to be fair.

[light catcher]

34. agreed - 50-50 split - least expensive option and a fair solution

[bobbert]

35. 50-50 fair?

but is that a 50-50 split for the first round of voting, then anybody can do what they want? Or is that a forced vote for every round at the DNC? If it's a forced 50-50 vote every time, that would be the same as just having the 48 other states vote. Why should we pay for flight/hotel rooms for votes that essentially don't matter?

[rocktivity]

40. NOTHING can be TOTALLY fair at this point

The people who voted shouldn't be disenfranchised. The people who didn't vote shouldn't be disenfranchised. The Dems who moved the primary dates shouldn't be rewarded for defying the DNC. And the DNC shouldn't be condemned for merely exercising its authority. I don't think there's a way to make everyone happy. So let's aim for the next best thing--distribute the unhappiness as evenly as possible.

:headbang:
rocknation

[scheming daemons]

9. Here's my view

Count Florida's delegates as 0.5 delegates each... based on the primary vote. 50% of HALF to Hillary, 33% of HALF to Obama, and whatever Edwards' percentage was to him.


For Michigan... give all of the "uncommitted" votes, about 40% to Obama. Hillary gets 55% of HALF, and Obama gets 40% of HALF.


A) The states get seats at the convention, though only half as many as they would have otherwise (similar to the GOP punishments)

B) The voters voices count.



I'm an Obama supporter.... but I don't see how Hillary's camp can be upset with this. They get their 55% in MI and their 50% in FL...... but at only half the delegates. Since the Hillary folks claim that Obama had a concerted effort to get MI voters to vote "uncommitted", they should have no problem with counting the uncommitted voters for Obama.

[Dinger]

14. Slightly Unrelated Question . . .

Why did Edwards SUSPEND his campaign and not END it?

[scheming daemons]

22. In case both Clinton AND Obama dropped out?? Ya never know....

Also.... since the campaign is "suspended", Edwards can still receive campaign donations without breaking any FEC rules.


If he "ended" his campaign, any donations he received would have to be returned I believe.

[Dinger]

24. Makes Me Wonder . . .

What could happen???

[nonconformist]

10. They need to be seated, and they need to reach some sort of compromise

Whether it be a re-vote or seated as-is, they simply cannot be ignored. They're extremely important states in the GE, vital states for us, and alienating them will not do us any favors down the road. The voters did nothing wrong, and it's not very democratic to disenfranchise millions of people, regardless of the reason.

Obama is fighting hard to stop a re-vote in Michigan, and that is the thing that REALLY boggles my mind. I can understand an argument not to seat the delegates as-is, even though I disagree with it... but to fight against a re-vote? Why on earth would you NOT want millions of votes to be counted... not to even mention, votes we desperately need in the GE?

[Tarc]

11. One way or another, they have to be counted

In my opinion, if both are left uncounted then that becomes a rich source of campaign material for John McCain in the general election. The "you were disenfranchised by the Dems!" message will turn off just enough voters to easily give McCain Florida and probably a razor-thin margin in Michigan.

The Florida election was fair, as all candidates names' appeared on the ballot and none campaigned there before the vote, so I feel that should have been counted as-is. A revote primary would've been tolerable, but that plan is now DOA. Senator Nelson is floating an idea of counting 1/2 the delegates as the GOP did, so that might work. Michigan looks like it is rally going ahead with a revote, and that is good since Obama was never on the ballot the first time around.

But seriously, let's not kid ourselves here; Obama supporters want the to not could because he's already ahead, while Clinton supporters want them to count because she's behind. Fortunately for the "Hillbots", there's more of a common sense argument (1. not giving away the states in the G.E. and 2. voters have the right to have their votes count) to go along with their opinion of the matter.

[SeaLyons]

12. Any way you look at it, disenfranchising

the voters due to political moves by both parties is not acceptable. They have to find a solution for the good of our party. Obama and Clinton have to come together and find a solution. Obama filibusters by saying he's going to "follow the rules" because the rules seem to fall in his favor since Clinton will beat him in those two states. That's not acceptable. This is about the voters.

[Dinger]

15. Yes, It Is About The Voters

At least it should be.

[democrattotheend]

16. Revote Michigan, seat half of Florida, strip supers in both states

That's my proposal.

[Dinger]

18. I Think I Like That (nt)

[mohc]

17. With re-votes seeming unlikely, the issue moves until after the primaries

Even if a compromise is reached, it will not happen before the primaries are over. Anything that changes the status quo in FL and MI would shift the perception of the race, and that is probably the primary effect the DNC does not want. Barring campaigning and completely discounting the votes were not simply a reprimand as many seem to view them. The decision was based on the concept that no real primary occurred in FL and MI so actions were taken to make it as if no votes occurred. This made the "results" of FL and MI minimal on the campaign. To stick to the original rule of a 50% reduction of pledged delegates and complete elimination of superdelegates would have been pointless, the FDP took its actions expecting the 50% reduction. They valued influence based on perception over delegates, so the DNC's focus had to be on eliminating influence over reducing delegate counts. The second the final vote is cast in a Democratic primary, this is no longer necessary. If Obama has a lead big enough to absorb seating FL and MI after all the votes are cast or Clinton has any size lead, my guess is FL and MI will be seated as is. This would not really be rewarding FL and MI, they would basically be seated only if doing so has no impact on the election. Hopefully that will satisfy FL and MI, but in reality it is no different than no being seated at all. In the event that Obama has a smaller lead, then talk of compromise begins. It could just come down to reducing the FL and MI delegations by whatever metric is needed for Obama to maintain his lead, once again making FL and MI meaningless towards the result. Regardless, compromise solutions, other than somehow reviving a re-vote, need to wait until after all voting is complete.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

19. Don't seat MI delegates, no "re-do".

A "re-do" involves agreement on format, rules (esp. voter eligibility). Obama and Clinton probably can't agree on "caucus vs primary", or who to allow in (Dem voters from Jan, Non-Rep voters from Jan, everybody regardless of Jan vote?). Each side is willing to agree to rules favorable to their candidate, so no consensus.

If there's no re-do, then don't seat delegates. If they're seated, then the DNC has shown their toothlessness. Rules need to be enforced, or the 2012 race will be a total free-for-all.

But if MI delegates (and I'd include Super-D's) are not seated, then remove that number from the total required for nomination. A majority of delegates from 49 states should get the nomination.

I mentioned only MI, because that's where I am. FL is different, and I'm not that familiar with the details.

:hi:

[JimGinPA]

23. Offer To Give All The Delegates To Obama...

See if Hillary wants them to count that much.

[usrbs]

26. revote

[burythehatchet]

28. Not a damn thing

Hillary keep stalking about disenfranchising voters. That's BS, they will still be voting in the GE.

[Lucinda]

29. Split Michigan. Seat Fl as they voted.

Florida had almost one million more voters show up than in the 2004 primary. They knew who everyone was. Seat them.

Michigan is a mess. They have uncommitted and exit polling to estimate Obama numbers. But his name wasn't on the ballot. Split them.

[rocktivity]

31. The voters shouldn't be disenfranchised (including the ones who didn't vote

because they were warned it would be waste of time), but the FL/MI Dem leadership shouldn't be rewarded for insuboridination against the DNC, either. So I say split the delegates down the middle and do not seat the superdelegates. It's not fair to everyone, but it distributes the unfairness as evenly as possible.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Upton]

36. Mi and Fla. made their bed

now they have to sleep in it. No do overs and they shouldn't be seated.

[TahitiNut]

39. Horse shit. The partisan insiders sacrificed the voters in an internal struggle for power.

The VOTERS had little to no say in the matter. None. The simple-minded and superficial rhetoric in referencing "Michigan" as some singular actor is intellectually atrophied or dishonest or both.

[TahitiNut]

38. "Candy Bar Justice"

(1) It must be recognized that the bell cannot be unrung.
(2) To embark on true DAMAGE CONTROL, instead of more raping and pillaging, the only approach to any reasonable amelioration, would be akin to giving one kid the knife and the other kid the choice.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/464

The subterfuge of posing an unacceptable alternative and then castigating the opponent is hypocritical posturing - the further exploitation of a disenfranchise electorate without ANY injection of funds or respect.

[Dhalgren]

41. They should hold new primaries in both states. This "rules" shit

is just that, shit. This is a huge fuck-up for Howard Dean and he needs to shoulder the responsibility and bite the bullet. Everyone who is shouting "the rules are the rules!" are the same ones who say that Super delegates must be forced to vote for who ever has the majority of pledged delegates or "the party will be destroyed!" What about the rules, here? The "rules" say that the SD can vote for anyone, for any reason, without any preconditions. Are you not for the "rules" in this instance, but for the "rules" in the other? And if following or not following the rules depend upon whether the Party is hurt, then not letting FL and MI vote is a "break the rules moment" for sure. If the Democratic Party cannot count on FL and MI in November, it is over. So, a little pragmatism now and then first thing next year set new rules that make some kind of sense and the DNC needs to stop acting like they live in a parallel universe and start acting like the political organization that it is supposed to be! Ok, rant over...