when the Democratic Party started picking and choosing which votes should count

[elixir]

Great article by Gilbert Martinez over at Democratic Daily.

<snip>

For some reason, it’s hard for some on the left to understand what ticks me off about FL and MI and why, if the voters from those states are ignored, I will have a hard time maintaining allegiance to the Party I have worked so hard for over the last several years. I’ve helped in local races, House and Senate races, statewide races and even presidential campaigns. I support Democrats for their commitment to equality, justice and basic decency (you know, like helping sick children). But I’m an old sentimentalist and actually believe in the fundamental principles of democracy. Disenfranchising the voters of FL and MI goes directly against those principles. So much so that the Democratic Party will have a hard time counting on my support. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are only candidates. Democracy is a principle I believe in more than either candidate.

FL and MI should count. I’ll go even further and say they should be counted before the Pennsylvania primary, or at least a solution should happen before then. Now many people will say that “rules are rules”. But as I saw in a comment section somewhere, this isn’t a game of Chutes and Ladders! Here’s what the “rules are rules” people are willing to do: Disenfranchise voters. Did FL and MI “break the rules” (just like IA, NH, NV, and SC)? Sure. Was it the voters of the state that broke these arbitrary rules? No. It is fundamentally unjust to disenfranchise voters for something that their legislators and leaders did. When we can start making rules–however clever they may seem–that result in the disenfranchisement of innocent voters, something is rotten in the DNC. Rules have consequences and the consequences of the current situation is a deliberate disenfranchisement of innocent voters. No matter how you spin this, that is what will happen and you can cut the euphemisms.

Why should a solution to FL and MI happen before Pennsylvania? Simple. Many Obama supporters are willing to seat MI and FL if Hillary would just drop out. In other words, they should count the votes only if they are meaningless votes. That’s the same as disenfranchisement no matter how big a thrill that idea sends up your leg. If the uncertainty of FL and MI in anyway cause Superdelegates to decide one way or another before the process is finished, it will delegitimize the entire process. After PA there will be calls from both sides for the other candidate to drop out and the uncertainty of FL and MI may push people one way or another and that is wrong and will taint the eventual winner. That can only be avoided by having a solution before the PA primary.

Let me be clear: The disenfranchisement of FL and MI is about more than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. It is about the soul of the Democratic Party. If Democrats are willing to write rules that result in the disenfranchisement of voters, then I want no part of it. If Democrats are only willing to count votes if they are meaningless, then I want no part of it. I don’t understand why there is even any controversy about letting people vote and have it count?

I think I miss the old Howard Dean. The one that would have said something along the lines of, “What I want to know is when the Democratic Party started picking and choosing which votes should count”.

I’d like to point out that all of this would be a moot point if Barack Obama didn’t thwart revotes in both FL and MI.

<snip>

http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2008/03/28/fix-fl-and-mi-now/

[DJ13]

1. And on and on

:nopity:

[Tyler Durden]

38. Keep it up. We know who screwed us.

And we have a LONG memory in Michigan.

All 5 states violated DNC Rule 11.A, and only 2 got punished, and in excess of DNC Rule 20.C.1.a.

Now why is that?

[Yael]

2. I guess the fact that HRC's campaign approved this back when she

thought she was inevitable isn't of concern any more?

[Debi]

3. Oh Geez

x(

[featherman]

4. The Democratic Party has every right to certify or not certify a method

for selecting delegates to it's own national convention. This is not about "counting votes". The votes were counted. But the Party will not allow the results to count as a METHOD OF DELEGATE SELECTION because the primaries in FL and MI were not certified as a valid delegate selection method.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[suston96]

17. Sorry, you are wrong...The Democratic Party cannot violate its own Charter...

Section 4.

The National Convention shall be composed of delegates equally divided between men and
women. The delegates shall be chosen through processes which:

(a) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate .....

(b) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who
participate in the Presidential nominating process...

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:i1Dy8P2UOcoJ:www.democrats.org/pdfs/charter.pdf+Democratic+Party+Charter&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

The Democratic Party Charter trumps spurious rules made up by party hacks that clearly violate the Democratic Party Charter which states that every registered Democrat will be guaranteed FULL participation in the nominating process. Changes to the Charter can only be made by Democrats in Convention.

[featherman]

21. Thanks for the reference but the DNC does set the rules for delegate

selection methods and they must be approved beforehand. This is not some random or willy-nilly process. The 2008 rules set out the calendar and the state parties were obliged to follow it or risk decertification of the primary as a method of delegate selection. I'll look that all up for you but meanwhile here is the 2008 rules regarding calendar:

"Some highlights of the 2008 Rules:

Calendar
Last year the Party's Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling issued its recommendations on the 2008 primary and caucus calendar.

The Party recognizes the need early in the nominating process to broaden participation to reflect the Party’s rich racial, regional, and economic diversity by including 2 additional states. Twelve states applied to conduct early primaries and caucuses. We believe that shows the energy and excitement for opening up the process.

The addition of 2 states early in the process will also open up the dialogue to engage a broader range of people to talk about a wider variety of issues. This will enable the Democratic Party to choose the strongest candidate to be our Presidential nominee.

The new schedule is as follows:

* Iowa holds the first-in-the-nation caucus on January 14.
* New Hampshire holds the first-in-the-nation primary on January 22.
* Nevada conducts a caucus between Iowa and New Hampshire on Saturday, January 19.
* South Carolina holds a primary 1 week after the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, January 29

The regular window will open for all other states on the first Tuesday in February -- February 5, 2008."

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/08/highlights_of_t.php

[featherman]

23. And this is from the Illinois Democratic Party Delegate Selection Plan

2. The delegate selection process is governed by the Charter and Bylaws of the Democratic Party
of the United States, the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National
Convention ( Rules ), the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention ( Call ), the
Regulations of the Rules and Bylaws Committee for the 2008 Democratic National Convention
Regs. ), the rules of the Democratic Party of Illinois, the Illinois Election Code, and this
Delegate Selection Plan.
3. Following the adoption of this Delegate Selection Plan by the State Party Committee, it shall be
submitted for review and approval by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee ( RBC). The
State Party Chair shall be empowered to make any technical revisions to this document as
required by the RBC to correct any omissions and/or deficiencies as found by the RBC to
ensure its full compliance with Party Rules. Such corrections shall be made by the State Party
Chair and the Plan resubmitted to the RBC within 30 days of receipt of notice of the RBCs
findings.
4. Once this Plan has been found in Compliance by the RBC, any amendment to the Plan by the
State Party will be submitted to and approved by the RBC before it becomes effective.

[suston96]

27. Sorry, NO state rules nor even the DNC itself, can violate the Democratic Party Charter.....

...just as state constitutions and state laws cannot violate the US Constitution and the US Codes.

The National Democratic Party Charter is the dogma of the entire Democratic Party and it is inviolable...

ALL Democrats can and must be allowed to participate fully in the nominating process according to that charter.

[suston96]

28. State rules cannot trump the Democratic Party Charter......

I don't care who wins the nomination but if whoever wins does so because Michigan and Florida were not counted there will be hell to pay and it is the Democratic nominee and the Democratic Party that will pay.

The blind partisanship that trashes voting rights so that a candidate wins an election is a fatal cancer on a democratic republic.

[featherman]

29. We are not disagreeing about the damage done the Democratic Party

by this mess. Nor am I arguing a case for one candidate or the other. I am trying to defend the Democratic Party to which I belong.

I thought we were disagreeing about whether the Rules and Means Committee of the DNC had the authority to set the rules of delegate selection by the state parties. I just put in the Illinois language to show that each state party MUST submit it's Delegate Selection Plan for approval by the RMC. If it's plan is not approved than it is not a valid selection plan. The language makes this quite clear.

The Florida and Michigan Delegate Selection Plans were not approved by the RMC. The primary votes took place anyway and the results were counted up. But, by the rules of the Democratic Party, they can not be used for delegate selection regardless of results.

[suston96]

30. Do I have to repeat my post? The Dem. Charter says it clearly.

"(a) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate .....

(b) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who
participate in the Presidential nominating process..."

No "rules" can change the Charter! Only a convention can do that.

And how can a Democratic Party eliminate members from participating in the democratic nominating process?

[featherman]

31. Actually it says nothing of the sort you seem to think

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on the above but you seem to insist that it has some meaning in this discussion. It does not. I am confused why you are cherry picking such a vague phrase and applying it to the Rules and Means Committee. It is very vague and not especially relevant to the specific point under discussion.

Not trying to be legalistic here but the phrase "nominating process" can only refer to a process within the party rules, the delegate selection rules rules set by the Rules and ByLaws Committee and adopted by the DNC. What else can it possibly mean? Anything else would be chaos.

[suston96]

34. The Democratic Party Charter is what its members must follow.....

. and any rules that they make must not transgress that Charter.

I repeat, it is the constitution of the Democratic Party. Any rules that violate the core principal of full participation by each and every member are therefore, null and void.

That Democrats around here and elsewhere are defending such a violation of the core principle of the Democratic Party - equal voting rights for all, is unbelievable and hypocritical.

[Tyler Durden]

39. I suggest you look up DNC Rule 11.A and Rule 20.C.1.a

There are 5 states in violation and 2 got punished in excess of the guidelines.

Now why is that?

[DarienComp]

5. This is the song that never ends!

It just goes on and on, my friends!
Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue singing it forever just because—
This is the song that never ends!
It just goes on and on, my friends!
Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue singing it forever just because—
This is the song that never ends!
It just goes on and on, my friends!
Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue singing it forever just because—
This is the song that never ends!
It just goes on and on, my friends!
Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue singing it forever just because—
This is the song that never ends!
It just goes on and on, my friends!
Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue singing it forever just because—
This is the song that never ends.....

[UALRBSofL]

6. elixir these are good points made in defense of the MI/FL voters

And there will come a time the democratic voters from MI/FL will revolt come the GE. :patriot:

[Forkboy]

7. You guys would have more of a leg to stand had you cared before Hillary needed them.

[DerekJ]

8. What exactly in the following three quotations that you don’t understand:

“Unconstitutional”, “Broke the party rules”, “Hillary signed that same bloody pledge that disfranchised them from the first place” ?

[walldude]

9. LMAO this coming from a supporter of the candidate who thinks

that winning Texas, Ohio, Fl, Mi and Penn should give her the nomination. After all why not, those are the "big" states. Fuck those other 47 small states... :rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

11. She lost Texas.nt.

[walldude]

14. Shhhhhhhhh.. don't tell them..

they may try to make Texas a "small state". :rofl:

[PseudoIntellect]

32. Yeah, it'll be just another meaningless red state now.

which is why Hillary had a confetti party over it.
:shrug:

[elixir]

36. Once again your fine use of the english language dissipates your argument.

She won them fair and square, why shouldn't they count. Oh, and don't forget to use fuck in your answer, it makes you so much more believable.

[Toucano]

10. The irony is almost too much.

Greedy MI and FL party leaders wanted more influence so they asked to move their elections up. They were told no, you can't do that.

If they were to vote now, much later than their original and unacceptable date, they would have enormous influence. Far more influence than their original date or their rule-breaking date.

Instead, they may get no influence at all.

The state and national party leaders who let it come to this should be beaten to within inches of their lives (not literally, of course).

[MichiganVote]

12. Well here's the thing Costa Rica, they are influencing plenty of people even now.

And for the record....the voters in Michigan are struggling to buy a fucking gallon of milk. So screw the depiction of any part of Michigan as being greedy.

[Toucano]

15. Easy! I didn't say anything about MI voters: I said state party leaders.

It's nothing personal. If the MI and FL delegates aren't credentialed, they'll be influencing nada.


And Michigan voters are better off without milk. It's toxic! :)

[MichiganVote]

16. Toxic? So is democracy.

[Mike03]

13. I don't understand why Obama would thwart revotes in MI.

Wouldn't a proper vote there be to his advantage?

[cascadiance]

18. The problem is that they ALREADY HAVE BEEN IGNORED...

... and it is the state's Democratic organizations fault for not following the rules that this has happened.

They should could, but they CAN'T because there HAS NOT BEEN A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS RUN IN THOSE PLACES YET!

Trying to count what is being called an "election result" there to the votes now being compiled nationwide only makes the situation worse, not better.

The attempt of seating the delegates even if their votes are rendered meaningless for the nominee is STILL useful in that it allows those delegates to be a part of the convention and help shape the party's business/platform there. THAT is what sitting the delegates is about, NOT aiding some Clinton camp driven coup attempt to success which is what this exercise IS!

[Bucky]

19. No one forced them to hold elections outside the rules.

In fact, both state parties were repeatedly warned that getting off the calendar would cost them their delegates. Now the party is supposed to reward these two states for defying the rules? The only groups that took the vote away from Florida and Michigan Democrats are the Florida and Michigan Democrats themselves.

[Lerkfish]

20. oh, the irony.

it is the clinton campaign that trashes every voter in states they lose by saying "that state doesn't count".
basically urinating on their own voters in that state.

I'm beginning to believe some clinton supporters are irony-impaired.

[sellitman]

22. Those votes only count when Hillary needs them

Obama can go suck eggs.

:sarcasm:

[caseycoon]

24. More like when the states

started picking & choosing which RULES don't count.

They knew going in their votes wouldn't count.
The PUBLIC knew their votes wouldn't count.
THEN given a chance to re-vote both states declined.
When the idea of a caucus was brought up (not nearly
as expensive) Senator Clinton refused.

[bvar22]

25. This is NOT a good argument for Hillary.

The ONLY chance she has is to for the non-democratic SuperDelegates to overthrow the votes of the Pledged Delegated at the convention.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. No, rules do matter, the DNC has to have credibility or it has no reason to exist

If the DNC says Florida and Michigan can be seated as is, then every single state can move up their primary to August of the year before the election if they want to. If people want to get rid of Iowa and New Hampshire's privileged status then there needs to be a broad consensus about how it should be done, not two states throwing a temper tantrum.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

33. It is about the soul of the Democratic Party

[madfloridian]

35. The meeting of the DNC rules committee August 2007, and what they knew about Florida

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1957

[elixir]

37. The fact remains that a republican majority pushed the FL bill through.

[JTFrog]

40. With zero resistance. Had they resisted, they wouldn't have been penalized. n/t